Oooops... I meant "Infinately as complex as God".

And to clarify...

"...virtually everything we see in the night sky with the naked eye is within our own galaxy."

Hello AJP,

Thanks for the comments and the link.. it's precious!

I must clarify though, the bit about the warning stickers is a satirical comment. An earlier post has pointed out the abhorrent state of affairs in Queensland regarding the usurping of our State Education system by Charismatic/Pentecostal Christians. The trouble began in 1910 when the word 'secular' was deleted from the Queensland Education Act, never to return. Within Australia, Queensland is unique in this regard (I'm not absolutely certain about WA).

The absurdity we encounter can often only be commented upon in a 'National Enquirer' tabloid manner. Hence the fake warning sticker story. A gander at the Renaissance of Reason associate site The Fourth R will give an indication of how hard it is attempting to achieve a secular State education for one's kids when residing upon the buckle of the Qld Bible belt.

http://www.thefourthr.info

AJ,
I never said anything about looking with a naked eye. Others seem to have clearly understood this implied in what I wrote. I would suggest that you are mistaken to think that the author of the book I was reading didn’t know what he was talking about. He is a reputable scientist with the ability more than most to think outside the box.

Relda,
You say my suggestion was based on a simplistic illustration. If you read it again, you would see that I said there were a few lines of evidence, and the one I raised was the only the simplest. I’ll explain further using an analogy. If the world was flat (and those that can’t grasp analogy might now accuse me of saying that I believe it is) then one simple supporting line of evidence would be that it appears flat as far as I can see. This line of reasoning would be consistent with reality. But after that you would need to search for more evidence to look into the matter more deeply.

Bushbasher,
I believe you’re asking me a question, but you’re not using the usual punctuation or a question mark at the end. Is there something wrong with your keyboard?

“dan, i'm not sure what point you're trying to make. are you suggesting that the idea of the earth being or not being at the centre of the universe is devoid of serious theological origins or theological implications”

I was attempting to question the certainty in your opening statement, in which you state that man is not anywhere near the centre of the universe. When theologians make certain statements, they sometimes get accused of arrogance (especially here at OLO). Occasionally this is warranted. Yet brash statements are not the monopoly of theologians. Can you state for certainty that we are not near the centre of the universe?

To answer your question a different way, nothing (not even modern science) is very far from theological origins or theological implications.

dan, forgive me? that was unbelievably brash of me? suggesting that man is not at the centre of the universe, merely because there's not a scrap of evidence for it? and there's evidence that the concept of the centre is probably geometrically meaningless? but of course i can't prove it? oh, what a thin little limb i find myself stranded upon?

No, bushbasher, forgive me. Your statement wasn’t particularly brash, perhaps just a little insular. Now don’t go accusing me of not stating evidence when I did so, albeit just a small preliminary piece.

bushbasher,
well, as far as the RIGHT to insult is concerned I must strongly disagree. Do you mean it as one of the human rights the West wants other cultures to accept as universal? Any violence, physical or verbal, is counterproductive. See relda about the ensuing right to return, which I do not subscribe to either: insults are best ignored, provided you have a thick enough skin. Since I abhor insults I do not want to give you concrete examples of insults, though it would be easy to construe some, addressed at all sorts of groups or individuals (including some participants of this OLO), not only at Christians and Muslims, whom as addressees most of the advocates of this "right" apparently have in mind.

Let me repeat that what is insulting to whom is a subjective matter, and somebody can claim to have been insulted by something that others see only as criticism: It makes a difference whether I hit (physically) a wrestler or an old lady, and both of them can claim they were hit when in fact it was just a slight push. The same about "hitting" verbally, where the situation complicated by the fact that what is and is not an insult depends not only on how it is received, and how it is seen by uninvolved "outsiders", but it varies also with time and culture: what was insulting to a Christian in the Victorian era could be an innocent remark today, whereas today we have all sorts of groups - not only religions - who feel insulted by this or that abusive representation of what they are or stand for. As I said, I refrain from examples.

Sellick is hard to understand or even to agree with, including myself. But I would like to hope I am not the only one here who was not insulted by his critical article.

relda,
I think it is fair to add that Peter Berger had corrected himself a couple of times, and now he sees the present as characterised not by secularism but by a pluralism of beliefs.