I think you would be rather surprised about most scientists and their perspective; agreed in most instances everyone has an open mind, but I have to tell you, once you have reports that has not reached the hands of The Bureaucrats, that have the audacity to alter and modify for their own purposes ; have corrupted and near destroyed the Institutions ; If you in general terms wish to know what damage a Bureaucrat can do ; Just Listen the Rudd/ Wong Propaganda adds about Global Warming . These clowns would tell you Nephilim were a cartoon show from the Flat Earth society.
And if you are into a bit of Astrophysics (Real Hypothesis) not garbled junk, then you would be familiar with a recent discovery of nothing, but known as Dark Matter; Quantum particle physics is starting to pay off.

The theory of the ever expanding Universe is the proverbial Myth. Like Global Warming , whatever model gave them an answer they wanted was the model they adopted ; and Now a new Hypothesis is in order in light of our new findings. And avoid spurious idiotic junkets
How many dimensions do you wish to name?

Priscillian,
>>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." ... You fail to consider that a basis for morality can reside anywhere other than where you personally find it. <<

What Peter gave is a DEFINITION of secularism that you might or might not like (then you should suggest an alternative). It certainly does not STATE that “a basis for morality cannot reside anywhere other than where Peter personally finds it.” Maybe he made that statement somewhere else, then you should quote that statement. before you condemn it.

As to the definition of secularism he gave, I could accept it as a working definition, provided the “self” is understood as not only the personal self (determined by genes and environment) but also the communal or societal “self”, i.e. the above environment. At least this is how I understand morality without God anchored in biological evolution.

(A morality with God, as I understand it, is not something completely different only something that ADDS to the above an abstract - or transcendent - “ingredient“ that is independent of the personal, societal, cultural and temporal determinants of the secular version. However, I am not a an ethicist, so please do not take this too seriously.)

George,
Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief.

Secularism is NOT the enemy of religion it is the protector of it. It is what stop religious nuts killing each other in the street (e.g Protestants vs Catholics, Sunni vs Shia, Muslim vs most others, Scientologists vs everybody)

Peter treats this instrument as if it is another religion. It is not. Secular governments work. All I can assume is that Peter would like us to live in a theocracy like Saudi Arabia or Iran. If not, what is it he is suggesting? How can we organise this country in a way that would make him happy. A state religion?

Peter did not actually say that the sentence you mentioned in my post but he certainly promotes the idea in article after article that without his god there can be no basis for moral reference or authority. This is why he detests moral relativism (I do too) and feels uncomfortable in a secular society even though it gives him the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal.

As to the source of our moral/ethical outlook without including a god I would invite you to investigate this yourself and tell me what you think. I remain open minded about the source of our morals but am sure it doesn't come from any ancient book.

Priscillian,
>>Holyoake invented the term "secularism" ... without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief.<<

There are many definitions of secular, secularism, secular humanism etc., but in principle there are only two different meaning to it that often get confused:

One thing is a secular system (the French call it laicité) and another thing is a secularist world-view (if you do not like the term religion), sometimes called secular humanism. Holyoake is about the first meaning, Peter about the second. Something like the term democratic: one thing is when you speak of a democratic political system (parliamentary democracy), and another thing is a particular political party that carries “democratic” in its name. A politician criticising e.g. the Social Democrats usually does not want to criticise the democratic system as such. I think the same is true about Peter’s criticism.

When the Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor criticises the “secular age” (http://www.amazon.com/Secular-Age-Charles-Taylor/dp/0674026764/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220531328&sr=8-1) he is saying essentially the same thing as the already mentioned atheist philosopher Jürgen Habermas with his “post-secular” society (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html). Of course, neither of them wants to return to a society where, say, the Christian outlook was dominant, but neither do they want a society where the secularist (in the sense of Peter’s, not Holyoake’s definition) world view dictates to others. Taylor calls the tendency the excesses of which he wants to correct secularisation, Habermas expressed his reservations by the very term “post-secular”. Of course the two adhere to two different world-vews, and, yes, I am aware they had a discussion and agreed to disagree on some details. This is like two coaches agreeing on the rules of fair play, although each one of them supports his own team.

A do not understand the reasons why Peter - or anybody else - should not be allowed to “promotes his idea (about what is the correct way of looking at things) in article after article. It would be strange if he changed his opinion from article to article.

As to your invitation to investigate “the source of our moral/ethical outlook“ I just have to repeat that I am not an ethicist.

Jacques Derrida recounts Jakob Freud placing two circum-inscriptions on his son Sigmund: the first, on the newborn's fore-skin, when he handed Sigmund over to the mohel, and the second, thirty-five years later, in commemoration of the first, when he gave, or returned, to Sigmund a childhood Bible, in a new binding (or skin) with an inscription: Son who is dear to me, go read the Book, the Book of Books, which is presented to you as a memorial and as a reminder, both mneme, anamnesis and hypomnema, of your father who loves you with an everlasting love.

Derrida strongly indentified with Freud asking, was he also the son of his father’s tears? The son, of whom his father was afraid to ask, do you still believe in God? The son who also rightly passed for an atheist? In a strange and truthful irony Derrida sees that deconstruction is for bastards for, “Who is my mother and my father?"

Beyond irony, it is tragic that the prophetic and ethical core of Jesus' thoroughly Jewish message was turned against the Jews. As A. N. Wilson put it: Were Jesus to contemplate the fate of his own people at the hands of the Christians, throughout the history of Catholic Europe, culminating in Hitler's Final Solution, it is unlikely that he would have viewed the missionary activity of St. Paul with equanimity.

He (Jesus) was killed, not because the Jews were so spiritually coarse as to be incapable of recognizing the infinite in the finite, but because Rome understood the message as politically explosive and subversive – one that was to empower the powerless, a point that Marx missed entirely, and chased away one ghost too many, a prophetic one. Nietzsche did see this, but he sided with Roman power and decided, “the powerless should stay put in their slavish impotence, keep to their smelly hovels, and let the forces fire, let the will to power glow in all its shining Schönheit among the few and the best."

sellick, i have some sympathy with you and other christians, when "christian" is effectively defined by some as e.g. "thoughtless biblical literalist"? but, here you started it, with the same kind of conveniently vague labelling of people you never actually identify.

you talk about the replacement of the christian story with science being a disaster. who does this? in what way? if your article is more than strawman nonsense, i'd like to see the real men, in numbers sufficient to warrant the article.

and, once again, why are you making it "christian story versus science"? why not "religious stories versus science"? or "spiritual stories versus science"? you honestly feels this needs no comment?

it is interesting seeing the philosophical discussion your article inspires. but i still don't know why your actual article isn't a vacuous attack on an imaginary enemy.

george, though i think there is a right to insult, it doesn't mean i regard it as wise or as an obligation! all i mean is that one should not have, or fake, a precious disposition, claiming insult in order to duck the substance of criticism. the real question is who is sellick attacking (and/or insulting)? honestly, i have no idea.