keith, i have imagination too. and i haven't settled anything in the manner being suggested. in particular, i haven't "replaced the Christian story with that of the natural science" in any way that i can understand that expression.

what i object to is people like sellick trivialising my world sense, and demanding which stories my children and i should listen to.

paulr, your dawkins/harris/dennett reference is the straw man here. again, i'm not demanding that sellick's story be true. i'm demanding the right to not listen to his story. and an ounce of respect for my ability to live a rich, thoughtful life without his story.

but no. apparently i'm a polytheistic self-indulgent egoistic pervert, with a shrine to rational empiricism. is it really a standard part of christianity for people to be this bloody arrogant?

After reading Sells exhortation that to read the bible one needs imagination, I was laughing so hard I have been unable to post on this thread until now.

I am totally bemused when people like Sellick claim that morality can only be found in Christ, just what do they think humans did on the eons BEFORE Christ? We didn't murder each other into extinction. We have always been able to understand issues of morality and ethics well before JC - think Greek philosophers or Eastern religiouns - Buddha preached much good sense 500 years before JC.

Christianity has only been around for 2000 years - there has been no discernible increase in morals or ethics. In fact some of the most resolutely evangelistic have been anything but ethical - grabbing dollars rather than souls.

Sellick believe what you want to believe, but casting aspersions on those who do not follow your particular version of Christianity or even any religion at all, is insulting at best and immoral behaviour towards others, at worst.

The golden rule of 'treating others how you would prefer to be treated' was around long before Christ, but I suggest it would not be heretical for you to apply it to yourself before writing yet another piece extolling your 'superiority' to others because of your religion.

crabsy: << 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. >>

I said no such thing. To assert that scientific knowledge and reasoning is of a different ontological and epistemological order than 'spiritual' or other subjective dimensions of experience in no way suggests that the latter are to be "shunned".

There is no doubt that many, if not most people attach enormous subjective meaning to 'spiritual' myths, legends, rituals, laws and philosophies. But that doesn't in itself make those kinds of truths the equivalent of objective scientific knowledge and theory, which as you say is rational-empiricist in nature - and, more importantly for this discussion, objectively verifiable.

There is no need to "shun" spirituality of any sort. Rather, those whose subjective realities incorporate a spiritual dimension need to realise that it only exists inside their heads. I think that religion and spirituality are perfectly valid dimensions of meaning for the credulous, but they really ought to stop trying to elevate their beliefs to the status of scientifically derived knowledge.

This is why Sellick and other Chrisitian sophists are doomed to wrestle endlessly with these irreconcilable aspects of their being. And good luck to them, so long as they don't demand that others take their existential angst as seriously as they do.

I think you are being a bit harsh about yourself Bush basher; I do not know you- and I would not pass any judgement , although purveying the virtues of others as arrogant is a bit much; do you wish to purchase a chain saw? Ha
You probably ducked when the basic point was made and it has passed over your head .

Many thanks paulr, for your "guidance on the interpretation of Peter's articles".

>>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')...<<

Your use of the word epigone is in itself deliberately insulting. As is your suggestion that we entertain the ridiculous notion that these writers output acts as a substitute for religious tracts.

It may allow you to feel more comfortable, to perceive us in these terms, but it is both arrogant and odious.

>>Peter is not saying that the historical/imaginative construct of Christian theology should be treated as objective fact on par with natural science<<

We know that. We read the same article that you (presumably) did. We noted specifically his words:

"Thus the authority of biblical texts does not rely on the idea that they are the dictated words of God but on our experience of them."

This - as other posters have noted - indicates an enlightened approach to the subjective nature of our relationship with texts of any kind.

Without needing to plumb the depths of Derrida and his mates, we all know that we react as individuals differently to the same story. This is true whether the text is in the form of a religious scripture, or as simple as a football match. The same construct impacts us in a different manner; if I am a Swans supporter, the fact that they whacked Brisbane yesterday at the SCG has a different meaning to me than were I to barrack for the Lions, or even to a Collingwood fanatic.

In the same way, the Bible affects the religious - of any persuasion - differently to the non-religious. As Sells points out, it is our experience of those words that matters; the experience of a Muslim would of course be different to mine, and different again to a devout Christian theologist.

>>The Christian narrative or Gospel is just as real as objective facts (from a certain perspective, of course!)<<

That perspective being, of course, entirely, and appropriately, subjective.

CJMorgan: I really have to point out that your protestations do not ring true. Even as you deny it you really are belittling subjectivity. You insist that “spiritual and other subjective dimensions of experience” are of a different order from rational-empirical cognition. “Order” means a hierarchical rank. You thus assert that the subjective life must be treated as of less value than the objective.

You then describe people with spiritual or religious leanings as “credulous” – i.e. gullible, easily fooled, too eager to believe. You are doing exactly what you deny doing: shunning such people and the subjective life in general. You denigrate them for “trying to elevate their beliefs to the status of scientific knowledge.”

This arrogance of scientism is what Peter Sellick and I are opposing. Once again, I emphasise that science is a wonderful thing and should be vigorously taught and applied – but not to the imaginative and spiritual aspect of human life. By the same token, art and story and spiritual belief have no rightful place in the objective world of science. (Creation stories must not be used as objective explanations of the origin of species, for example.)

The subjective and the objective are obviously different categories but they are also of equal value for living our lives to the full