The replacement of the Christian story with that of natural science has been a disaster for the spiritual but not for the existential.

Since the Christian story has resulted in the Inquisition, Crusades, the enslavement of the indigenous Americans justified by Christianity, the Holocaust resulting from the years of hatred promoted by Christianity and other atrocities the destruction of much of Christian spirituality is a step forward for humanity.

It has been a step forward for the existential as natural science has enabled humanity to see the world as it is.

The Christian Bible has furthered:

1.religious bigotry ("No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6), This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

2. anti-semitism (And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Matt. 27:25)), sexism (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1Cor. 8-9),

3. homophobia ("...the men of Sodom...to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.'" (Lev. 18:22) This story that portrays all of the men of Sodom as eager to gang-rape two heavenly visitors has been used to condemn faithful and loving homosexual relationships.

4. corporal punishment "Do not withhold discipline from a child....If you beat him with a rod, you will save his life from Sheol" (Prov. 23:13, 14)),

5. environmental degradation ("Be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth" (Gen. 1:28)).

The above and other examples of biblical justification for atrocity can be found on the website of Bishop Spong who is trying to rid Christianity of some of its evil.

Relda,
On the issue of secularism, Charles Taylor asks the question as to why in the 15th C it was impossible not to believe in God but in the 21st it is almost impossible to. He frames secularisation as the failure to see horizons other than those immediately available to us, that is, the almost complete absence of the transcendent in modern society. This explains why our culture has become increasingly bland and introspective and the flatness of human life. Secularism is not just about church attendance it is an orientation of the heart and mind that leaves empiricism as the only test of truth and the self as the only basis for morality.

Bushbasher.
You should read these pages from my perspective! One of the reasons that I do not participate that much is that I face a flood of insult and disparagement and am grateful that others have taken up my defence and in the process have added more things to think about. As for those who are fervently against what I write I find most of them can be categorised as the same old rants that do not deserve a reply. Occasionally there is a genuine question that may elicit a response.

Peter Sellick

George,
Sure, there are times anything stands to be corrected - Berger included, and might I add, papal decree. History portrayed often gives good retrospective view, where the culmination of an error may seem all too obvious. Our idea on ‘progress’ seems to suggest, errors do not repeat or perhaps, do they simply wear a different suit? The “right of return” for an insult, as you allude to, need not be taken up – far better to ignore it in the exercise of something decent, if not, moral.

I’ll take your point Sells. The scientific empiricism you mention has almsot certainly led to, inter alia, beliefs in a ‘life-force’, a ‘power of spirit’ and this has also gradually promoted agnosticism and atheism, perhaps explaining the long-term decline of religious practices. Research literature, however, on "believing without belonging" adds further dimension.

In 1914 the American psychologist James Lueba sent questionnaires to a random sample of to ‘American Men of Science’. Each was asked to select one of the following statements "concerning belief in God" :

1. I believe in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer. By "answer," I mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer.
2. I do not believe in God as defined above.
3. I have no definite belief regarding this question.

He wanted to show that men of science were irreligious. Leuba found that 41.8 percent of his sample of prominent scientists selected option one, thereby taking a position many would regard as "fundamentalist." Another 41.5 percent selected the second option (many of whom, as Leuba acknowledged, no doubt believed in a somewhat less active deity), and 16.7 percent took the indefinite alternative. In 1996 Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham (1997) replicated Leuba's study exactly. 39.3 percent of eminent scientists selected option one, 45.3 percent chose option two, and 14.5 percent took option three. Over an 82 year period, there has been no real decline amongst the most empirical of observers in a literal belief in God. The religious decline, noted by you, lies on the surface.

Peter: "Secularism is not just about church attendance it is an orientation of the heart and mind that leaves empiricism as the only test of truth and the self as the only basis for morality."

Here is the heart of your problem Peter. You fail to consider that a basis for morality can reside anywhere other than where you personally find it.

If it is The Book that gives you a morals then good for you. You have made a mistake(for reasons I am happy to debate) but in any case how dare you suggest non believers don't have a moral frame work other than "self" simply because we don't kneel before your ancient holy book.

Yes I agree with you that cultural and moral relativism are questionable philosophies (for a different reason) but that doesn't just leave us with your god-given revelation as the only source of "truth".

It is not a binary choice. It is an analogue shade of grey. Your argument reminds me of the old over used quote from C.S. Lewis that Jesus was either a liar, mad or God (conveniently leaving out any other alternatives like deluded, mistaken, a cultural relativist or a Jewish preacher/politician on a scripture-inspired mission.
A number of studies have indicated that religious belief is not an indicator of moral outlook and behaviour. You have failed abysmally to show that belief in any kind of literalist religious superstition actually benefits anybody. You have failed to indicate that religious authority even exists (apart from the authority you have chosen to give it which is of course a concession to "self".)

You also seem to consider secularism as some kind of a movement, as you do atheism, whereas these things are simply a way of conducting the affairs of state that is shown to work(in the case of secularism) and living life without a god or gods (as in atheism). I'm sorry society is moving in a way that doesn't suit you but you lot have have it your way for far too long.

How about giving us some more evidence Peter ?

Ronnie,

I can't believe I missed the satire in the 'Creationist sticker' bit! Don't I feel like an idiot now! Especially since that's just my kinda satire.

I was at work at the time and was attempting to be inconspicuous while skimming through this thread and the website – hence the mistakes in my post and the typo in my correction post – and I missed the joke entirely.

That's my excuse anyway... And I'm sticking to it. :)

Dan,

<<I never said anything about looking with a naked eye.>>

At the risk of sounding pedantic... You didn't actually mention a telescope before – which I would have thought was a crucial aspect to what you were saying. Using a telescope indoors really isn’t much of an experience though. Or did you also forget to mention switching off the lights?

C’mon Dan. Admit it… You meant “with the naked eye”, didn’t you?

I mean, who would actually be running around their house with a telescope in their hands without being instructed to?

But even still, that's not evidence at all, and if this “scientist” actually said to “look out the windows” as an example of our galaxy being at the center of the universe, then I would seriously question what his/her motives were in trying to prove this, as it is simply an invalid example.

Take the balloon analogy of the universe that I used as an example... The rubber skin of the balloon in the analogy would’ve been much more 3-dimentional (thick with galaxies) compared to the thickness of the rubber skin of a real balloon in relation to it’s empty space. Therefore, even with the telescope (that you forgot to mention), we would still appear to be in the center of the universe.

<<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.>>

No.

I would suggest that this scientist is a Creationist doing the unscientific thing of trying to twist the evidence to fit a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Continued...

...Continued

<<He is a reputable scientist with the ability more than most to think outside the box.>>

I'd doubt that.

Because if his/her hypothesis had any credibility at all, hundreds of scientists would be trying to help build on it in order to share a piece of the Nobel Prize.

You wouldn’t be talking about Dr Russell Humphreys by any chance, would you, Dan?

Just wondering, because Humphreys' hypothesis about the Milky Way being at the center of the universe has been dismissed by the entire scientific community as totally flawed – even by some Creationists…

http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

Tell me, Dan... Has this scientist ever presented his hypothesis for an official peer review? And if so, by whom?

<<If the world was flat (and those that can’t grasp analogy might now accuse me of saying that I believe it is)...>>

You're confused, Dan. You included the word “If”. But before, you didn't include the word “telescope” in your earlier piece of “simple supporting line of evidence” – which as I've shown, still would've been irrelevant anyway.

<<…nothing (not even modern science) is very far from theological origins or theological implications.>>

Nothing?

Then, aside from the hundreds of examples provided in my posts and links, how do the ‘Theological origins’ explain the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and that our 46 chromosomes are the same as 46 of their 48 chromosomes, with chromosome pair number 2 in humans appearing exactly like a fused version of the two in chimps that we’re missing?

Or is God just testing our faith?