Sellick, Pericles, Bushbasher, and Bushbred ... I don't know.

I've seen the magnificance and power of the universe and of human effort. I've immagination, a small belief in the foreordaining of the Hebrews, some of the reason of the Greeks and a sympathy with the thoughts of Freud yet I've been dumbfounded by the a simplistic statement of a nine year old.

'someone started it.'

I thought but left unsaid 'I don't know'...

I won't need a bathtub but I wrestle with these ideas daily. Those of you who have settled one way or the other are truely blessed and ... bloody fortunate.

<< Your assumption has always been that relying upon one's own ability to separate right from wrong must inevitably lead to depravity. According to you, unless we believe in your particular version of religious dogma, we are all but a casual whim away from becoming an axe murderer. >>

It's a standard fallback argument for fundamentalists. It requires us to believe that all the good works in this world are done by Christians, and all the evil acts by non-Christians. Of course, no atheist has ever shot an abortion clinic to pieces or started a campaign of genocide in the name of god, and Christians are no more likely to be found in charitable and helping roles than an agnostic or atheist.

The other, disturbing, possibility is that those who roll out that argument really DO need rigid fundamentalism to keep them from being murderers and rapists.

I have offered some guidance on the interpretation of Peter's articles in order to progress discussion in these forums...

For the benefit of the Dawkins/Harris/Dennett epigones in this forum (who take the views of the aforementioned men as the objective 'Word of God') we really need a broader discussion on various different notions of truth (objective and subjective), perspectivism, phenomenology and existentialism. It is clear to me that Peter is talking in the language of these philosophies, but many of his detractors have not recognised the language and fallen into category error. I recommend the late Robert Solomon as an introduction to the above topics. For Christian theology I recommend Marcus Borg. To help all of us approach matters more open-mindedly I recommend the following article as a thought experiment: "Why Every Christian Should 'Quite Rightly Pass for an Atheist'", http://theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=341

Peter, like Kierkegaard and Sarte (an atheist), supports the position "all power to the sciences" in objective matters, but does not support positivism and scientism (in the pejorative sense of the term).

"But this must be done so that the historical/imaginative construct of Christian theology is given equal weigh for being 'true' as it does that of natural science."

Peter is not saying that the historical/imaginative construct of Christian theology should be treated as objective fact on par with natural science; that would be category error. His detractors must stop making this strawman and consider more broadly where he is coming from (i.e. a Christian existential perspective, see Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, Rudolph Bultmann, Karl Barth, etc.). He is talking about existential truth. This truth is just as 'real' as objective truth and from a certain perspective, much more important. The Christian narrative or Gospel is just as real as objective facts (from a certain perspective, of course!). Further reading: "Ideology, predestination, and the stories we tell", http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2008/02/ideology-predestination-and-stories-we.html

paulr: << He is talking about existential truth. This truth is just as 'real' as objective truth and from a certain perspective, much more important. >>

Indeed, but that perspective is an entirely subjective one. It is a category error to confuse subjective truths with the objective reality that empirical science seeks to describe and explain.

Further, to assert that these kinds of subjective truths are of equivalent valence to those to which science aspires is to engage in a kind of sophistry - one which ultimately fails the reality test, no matter how cleverly nor circuitously the argument is presented.

CJ Morgan: You’ve just proved my earlier point. You are saying that subjectivity (or the “inner life”, or “soul”, or “spirituality”) is to be shunned. You and others have made a shrine to rational-empiricism and heap scorn on any other way of knowing and being. Humanity is suffering from a chronic malaise caused by the virus that is your scientism. The dogma of scientism is alienating people from their spiritual well-springs. That’s what Peter, Paulr and I deplore. Science is great as long as it rules in its legitimate territory – which is not the existential or spiritual life of a person.

The more you move away from the civilization ethos of the basic premise of Judaic- Christian values and the Hellenistic philosophical principle – You only enter the realm of New Polytheistic Cultism and self indulgent Egoistic perversion ; Just ask a few Communist and Proletariat and the Many mutating Socialist regimes that are revolving around Nothingness.
When you try and understand the psychological parameters and the deceptive notions many participate in today;
The one subject that is close to a posters heart that contributes here is Sir Oswald Mosley, and I have done much homework on that subject; only to find the continuum and Egocentricities of total misrepresentation and the typical proliferation of Propaganda to create confusion.
Who said this in 1968?
"I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the Left and is now in the centre of politics".
If you know the answer, then you know the deception and the Freudian tactics they engage in.