george, you say that the issue is not one of compatibility but of tolerance. i would agree.

i think the trouble (well, one of the troubles) with this thread is that it has been set up by sellick's straw man: the purported replacement of the christian story with science. you also seemed to gently (i would say too gently) point out the strawness in your first post in this thread. i think sellick is the one who has actually, and needlessly, raised the issue of compatibility.

given sellick's premise, i don't know what he's trying to explain. and to the extent he's not introducing straw men, he is genuinely being insulting.

as for the posts by you and reida and others, i've appreciated them in the past and appreciate them here, though much of your discussion is beyond me.

a last brief comment. it is silly to regard christianity as a single-belief monolith. but the holding on to willfully ignorant anti-scientific nonsense is hardly confined to a few religious backwaters. there's enough religious literalism around to still cause plenty of concern.

George

The link you provided was a wonderful and comprehensive look at the complex issues of belief, tolerance and reason.

In light of Bushbasher's above post, I think the following paragraph from the article is very relevant and it would behoove Sellick to read in its entirety and do a little reflection on his communication skills.

>>>""Tolerance" is of course not only a question of enacting and applying laws; it must be practiced in everyday life. Tolerance means that believers of one faith, of a different faith and non-believers must mutually concede one another the right to those convictions, practices and ways of living that they themselves reject.

This concession must be supported by a shared basis of mutual recognition from which repugnant dissonances can be overcome. This recognition should not be confused with an appreciation of an alien culture and way of living, or of rejected convictions and practices.

We need tolerance only vis-a-vis worldviews that we consider wrong and vis-a-vis habits that we do not like. Therefore, the basis of recognition is not the esteem for this or that characteristic or achievement, but the awareness of the fact that the other is a member of an inclusive community of citizens with equal rights, in which each individual is accountable to the others for his political contributions."<<<

I thought I’d relax with a cup of tea and read through some of the comments. I only got as far as the first line of the thread’s first comment before I thought I’d respond.

Bushbasher - “the problem with non-Copernican religious cosmology is that it, figuratively and literally, put Man at the centre of the Universe. it's long after time to accept that this just isn't true.”

Our teachers told us that mankind is the pinnacle of all there is. We are at the centre. What is more important than us children of the Enlightenment? But who was Copernicus? I thought he was a monk. (Someone might correct me here.) As a monk, I’m guessing that even if he did think that the earth revolved around the sun, he would still be affirming that God is at the ‘centre’ of his universe.

Lately I read somewhere that there are some lines of evidence from astronomy to suggest that we, meaning our galaxy, is roughly speaking at or near the centre of the universe. The simplest of these was to see a similar number of stars when you look out one window as when you look out the other.

bushbasher,
I did not want to imply that the question of tolerance is more important than that of compatibility - they are just two different things. Much of the controversy, also on this OLO, is based on the assumption - on both sides of the debate - that the religious and scientific outlooks are not compatible (unless the first one is reduced to the subjective realm of psychology). I tried to defend this compatibility - that one can accept the existence of a reality accessible only through religious experience and religious (mythological) models as a part of his/her world view, at the same times as one accepts the validity of scientific models of a reality accessible only through senses, instruments and these models.

You say that Sellick's article is insulting to you. Well I participated in this discussion as well as in the discussion of an article by Brian Holden (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7684), that some narrow minded Catholic mind also find insulting. I think both articles have lead to some worthwhile comments, (never mind the worthless ones) that could enrich the outlook of those participating in the discussion. I think they both serve a good purpose irrespective of whether you like what the article itself says.

It has been claimed that the "the right to offend, to insult" is one of the basic rights in a free democratic society, although in practice mostly adherents of some religion have been targeted or felt as if they had been targeted. I do not subscribe to a "right to insult", but I have to admit that what is insulting to whom is a rather subjective matter.

I certainly agree that there is plenty of "willfully ignorant anti-scientific nonsense", as there is also a lot of willfully ignorant anti-Christian/anti-religion nonsense. We just have to live with these, and try to keep our dialogue above them.

Fascinating stuff.. here's some relevant Australian-made reflection fodder..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOHPQusSc5Q

This cute though powerful comment on creationism and apparent human need for religion in general is titled "Why Don't Bees Go to Heaven?" John Safran saw fit to play the song a couple of weeks ago on his Sunday JJJ programme.

It all lives at my website..

http://www.renaissanceofreason.com

..with lots of Oz comment here (including Kevin's recent self-outing as a creationist)..

http://www.renaissanceofreason.com/current.html

I feel sorry for the author.

He assumes that all Christians are good and intelligent people.

Not so, unfortunately.

One only has to come to Toowoomba to see how dangerous these people can be.

Education Queensland allows complete nutters into our state schools to run Religious Instruction. In the main these people are not 'teachers' and not trained at all in dealing with school students.

They are in fact missionaries, intent on converting our children to their 'faith'.

On top of that we suffer from Scripture Union 'chaplains' forced onto us by Julie Bishop and John Howard.

Gillard is in charge of wasting $165 million of ATO monies, yet her staff at DEEWR make no effort whatsoever to police how the money is spent or what 'chaplains' do in the schools'

Here in Toowoomba, we suffer from a group of extremists, very similar to those that Chris Masters exposed the other week, who, as well as filling our schools with missionaries for RI are also allowed by Premier Bligh to fill our schools with 'mentors'.

A visit to the Toowoomba Church 'healing room' webpage will give readers some insight into the thinking of our 'chaplains' and RI instructors here. Do read the story about the 'serpent' and her eggs right at the bottom:
http://toowoombachurch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=277&Itemid=1

Now, our author must have no experience of this sort of 'Christian' but let me assure him and all other readers that they are like a cancer on our community.

Not only do they impose themselves on the school system, they also impose their dullwitted thinking on the business community here and distort the ability to have some half decent community discussion.

None of this has anything to do with the Bible?

Well, they believe every single word of it and that rather impacts their actions.

No doubt they are 'well meaning' but, frankly, that is no excuse for the stupid and dangerous world they would have us all live in.