Dan,
No you are wrong about science. Faith has nothing to do with it. If it did it would not be science it would be alchemy and magic.
Axioms? what are you talking about? Christianity assisted science?..rubbish! An orderly god? Read Exodus.....then read a history book.

You are arguing like the typical theist who begs the question by using an underlying assumption that religious belief and moral behaviour are somehow related, which of course they are not. Even worse, your arguments also try to suggest that a world of secular science inevitably leads to immoral action. Your argument consists of pointing out some bad godless people. This is the "My cup is yellow, canaries are yellow ergo: my cup is a canary" type of logic.

You also miss the point of law reform in Victoria. The legislation in the parliament is to decriminalize abortion. It does not justify it on moral grounds. Before you get too hot under the collar though, I must tell you that I too would be inclined to define a human life as starting at conception. This of course is only a personal moral opinion made about a situation that defies moral absolutism, like many other ethical and moral issues we face in this modern world.

Anyway all this is irrelevant as you , like all theists, are great at condemning us godless heathens but fail entirely to provide a clear, concise, logical argument as to why we should consider sharing your memes.

The author is far more interested in the story of the Church than he is in the story of Christ. Modern Christianity lost its way when the Christina community (in the media) was portrayed as wholeheartedly supporting the war in Iraq.

david f,
You are right, we do differ. You regard my world-view as a contaminant received through indoctrination, whereas I refuse to use such terms to describe your world-view although there are also things you say (though not everything) that I strongly disagree with.

relda,
Again, thanks for interesting insights. I think before Einstein it was Kant with his Ding-an-sich who spoke of "something we cannot penetrate".

When speaking of “the vantage point of a more objective review“ in connection with the role played by religion, especially Christianity, in history, one has to keep in mind that there are always outsider views and insider views. The one should be seen as complementing the other when looking for an “objective evaluation“ of this role, although often both the insider and the outsider see their view as the only true, objective one. Of course, I am talking about evaluating the role, not about documented historical facts.

This is not the case when dealing with objects of scientific enquiry, e.g. cosmology, nuclear physics, where usually the outsider can only learn from the insider (by trying to understand the popularised exposition). This is different in the case under consideration: neither can the outsider teach the insider how to “properly“ look at things (or vice versa), nor can the insider make the outsider see things the way only a committed insider can (or vice versa).

By “naive truth” I did not mean anything pejorative, but a "common sense" approach to everyday truths that does not need deeper philosophical scrutiny.

I also agree that "philosophy is everyone’s business" although I would rather call it “seach for purpose or meaning of one’s life”. That, however means that also the intellectually unsophisticated Christian looks for answers, which he/she can find only in a form (e.g. “simple rendition of the Gospel story”) that indeed looks naive, or childish to use your Einstein‘s expression. Here by naive I indeed mean something intellectually unsatisfying for a more sophisticated Christian or non-Christian. However, these expressions of faith are also legitimate, because the Christian message is not intended for intellectuals only.

Dan, you're making a number of assumptions that are factually and philosophically incorrect.

The reason scientific theory has been so successful is because it rejects axioms in the search for accuracy. Fundamentalists only like to say that evolution is a faith because it gives them comfort to believe that apocryphal scripture has the same weight as testable, observable data.

The caricature of scientists praying at the altar of Darwin is pure indulgence. In reality, scientists fight like rabid dogs over each new hypothesis or research finding. It's only after many years and thousands of failed attempts at falsification that a theory becomes accepted as proven.

Anyone who tells you that Hitler's program of eugenics had anything to do with Darwin's theory of natural selection is either woefully misinformed or has an agenda to push. It's just another example of the "canary cup" argument Priscillian identified above. Human beings have exercised selective breeding since before the Bible was even written. Purebred dogs and horses? Selective breeding. High-yield food crops? Selective breeding. Inbred noble families with ancient bloodlines? Selective breeding.

The Nazi eugenics program never used any scientific principle that was unknown in the centuries before Darwin's birth, but Hitler did invoke Christianity as justification for his atrocities. He didn't need Darwin to realise that breeding blue-eyed blondes with each other would produce more blue-eyed blondes.

In regard to the abortion bill, what is the current definition of a human being, and who makes that definition in the first place? Are you sure you're not just assuming that your personal definition is the commonly accepted one? If opinion polls are to be believed, the vast majority of Australians disagree with your definition of a human, so the bill is simply bringing the law into line with that.

And, like Priscillian, I have to disagree with your contention that Christianity helped science flourish in the west. Rather, Christianity has fought tooth and nail throughout the ages to suppress science, because it undermines religious authority. I'd be very interested to see some historical evidence to the contrary.

I find many of George’s attitudes humane and sensible.

Dan Wrote:

"You speak in horrific terms about the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis and the millions eliminated by Marxist regimes without mentioning that the faith assumptions underlying Hitler’s and Marx’s philosophies were heavily contributed to by the emerging ‘science’ in the form of Darwinian selection. Or did the Nazi doctrine of Aryan superiority which supported subjugating or eliminating non-Aryan people have nothing to do with Hitler’s reading of Darwin, influencing his belief that non-Aryan races were less advanced?"

Dear Dan,

Unfortunately you are repeating common myths.

The Communist Manifesto citing the class struggle as the engine of human development was published in 1848. Darwin published in 1859.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth1 debunks myths about Hitler. His ideology predated Darwin. Hitler in Mein Kampf does not mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution" (in the context of natural selection). Regarding Aryan superiority and Jewish hatred, Hitler describes in Mein Kampf how he changed his mind about the Jews influenced by the anti-Semitic movement of the Christian Social Party. Hitler was possibly not even aware of Darwin. Christian supersessionism maintains that Christianity replaced the covenant of God with the Jewish people. Jews became superfluous and could be eliminated. Racist anti-Semitism arose when the Spanish Inquisition persecuted Christians descended from Jewish converts.

Some in both the Catholic and Lutheran churches have recognized the role of their religions in setting the stage for and participating in the Holocaust.

In 1965, Catholic clerics composed a statement that changed the bitter, bloodstained 2,000-year relationship between two peoples: Nostra Aetate, ("In Our Time"). Nostra Aetate repudiates the ancient Christian charge against Jews as "Christ-killers" and reaffirms God's eternal covenant with the Jewish people.

Mother Basilea, a German Lutheran, leader of the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, made it her life’s work to repent for Germany's cruel treatment of other nations, especially the Jews. She recognised Lutheran guilt.

Christians of good will have recognized the role of Christianity in the Holocaust. To correct bigotry it is necessary to recognise it.

George,
I can only but essentially agree with your last post. You may be interested to view the ‘Dolhenty Interview’ (http://radicalacademy.com/dolhentyinterview.htm) on the prevalence of the “intellectual insanity” within society – an insanity Dolhenty believes is affecting all the countries of the world which are within the Western tradition. Subjectivism, relativism, scientism, politicism and determinism are named as the pillars of this insanity.