Yet another article Peter, that is sure to provoke much comment. I though I'd get my comment in before the usual fracas starts.

I don't necessarily believe that spirituality means believing in a god. I would consider myself spiritual, but not religious.

Last year walking in the mountains of Bhutan, I certainly felt peace and tranquility (but that could have been lack of oxygen!) looking at the majesty of the landscape, and also when in the remote monasteries. I found it spiritually enriching, but not a religious experience.

In such landscapes as mountains and deserts I can see where the thought of an overarching being came from as the open sky stretches for miles, but I can't believe in it myself.

On the point of tradition, there is nothing wrong with tradition, it gives structure to life and sometimes provides meaning. But, change is also good, as is uncertainty (my thoughts on this are in my article from last week), they help life become dynamic and interesting. So I don't think that holding on to tradition for the sake of it is a good thing. As the world changes we need to adapt to it, and holding on to traditions (albeit perhaps ones that have served humanity reasonably well) can sometimes hold us back, unless they themlseves can be adapted to the current situation.

Phil.

Two things. I certainly would not advocate a reading of the existence of God from nature. One may admire a sunset but then face a freezing night. Nature is ambivalent. Rather God is to be found in the expression of past truth in the present that creates a new future. Our understanding of past truth is always evolving, that is why theology is an active science and not a museum. We certainly do not cling to it for its own sake but because we believe that history has something to tell us.

Peter Sellick

Fiction is far easier to critique than reality. Nice book review.

Sells,
In your comment to Phil you state that theology is an active science. Theology is not a science at all. Science seeks the best evidence available like the vast evidence that shows the existence of gravity. Where is the similar vast evidence that any god exists or particularly the one you believe in?
I think Terry Lane hit the nail on the head when he asked years ago, “Where does God exist except in your own head?” He also commented that, “Theologians make it up as they go along” a view your comment seems to accept when you claim that theology is active.

Peter,

I do enjoy your thought provoking articles. I know little about Christian theology and dogma, and next to nothing about other religions, but I have always felt Christianity to be an evolving relationship with God. My parents had an open and loving relationship with God and I have followed their example. As for theology not being a science, that could open up a whole debate on what is a science, such as math/physics. Many questions in math are still to be answered. And what about psychotherapy, much of which is based on observation?

I will not have the time to read The Plumb Trilogy, but thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I have yet to read the trilogy of books promoted, and probably never will - however I note that they are distributed by a firm called 'Fantastic Fiction'. The books are of course fiction - hardly surprising when one considers that the author of this article draws most of his world view from the best known work of fiction of all. I refer of course to the (allegedly) Holy Bible. Now it seems that Dr Sellick is using fiction to substantiate fiction. What next I wonder - quotations from 'Bananas in Pyjamas?