The problem with GB was that both the America’s and the colonies in the east were a long way from Britain. It was still a superb colonist, compared to Belgium, Portugal and Spain, and probably France. France was not so bad, they taught the Vietnamese to cook marvelous bread and pastries, as some Patisseries in Australia attest. The faith of the Brits, was placed in the New Testament as early as 1215, and it was good for them.

The Magna Carta is almost directly lifted out of the Gospel of Matthew. The faith based system was where the first step was to go talk with your brother, and since everyone was a Roman Catholic in 1215, they were all brothers in Christ. The Pope got annoyed because instead of a Priest owing allegiance to him being the judge, the Brits appointed 12 disciples drawn from the faithful. The second step of faith was to take two of your fellows and go and talk to him, and see if it could be sorted. The last resort was to take it to the ecclesia, the gathering of the people translated as Church, but in reality a court.

There as an act of faith, the truth was submitted to the twelve who decided which of the opponents was a bl**dy liar. This system works still in the United States which insisted upon it when they booted the Brits out for being stupid. Ninety five percent of cases tried by the faith system settle. Faith works wonders.

The Star Chamber was erected at the Pope’s request to bring Brits into line with Rome. It was a Priests Court, totally anathema to Protestant Christian faith. The English had a maxim of law, The Pope never sleeps, and since 1970, in Australia in New South Wales we are asked to put our faith in a lawyer instead of the Christian jury, and it is bad for us. In fact the country is littered with honest men and women still shattered by the verdict of a Judge. Lack of faith is very bad for every society.

Eckadimmock,

I know, that was a very long sentence of mine, hence easy to misunderstand: I certainly never suggested "to leave out Christian" (I think this is what you meant, not "nonChristian") scientists.

What I had in mind was that when reading explanations to non-specialists (popularisations) I prefer those popularisers who do not make it clear from the beginning that they want their explanation to be compatible with the theist or atheist world-view held by the populariser. Dawkins is a clear example of one who does, but in his case it does not matter that much since in his very informative Blind Watchmaker (and I presume also in his Selfish Gene) his anti-religious non-sequiturs are very explicit and easy to bracket out by the reader. (The same with letting show the scientist's gender, ethnicity etc.)

Non of the scientists you name have made themselves a name as science popularisers, although their world-view preferences are well known since they themselves are well known. Especially Polkinghorne, writing as a double-specialist on the relation of science and Christian theology, obviously cannot hide his world-view presuppositions.

Nice way to sidestep answering the questions, Eckadimmock.

>>Pericles, "Imaginary being" "emotional crutch" and "think for myself" doesn't really address the issue at all. Since you're so much cleverer than a mere theist, I'm sure you know why an "argumentum ad hominem" is invalid.<<

But it isn't ad hominem at all, is it?.

It is my opinion that Christians believe in an imaginary being.

There is nothing ad hominem in that, it is simply my opinion. If we were arguing over evidence, that might be different. But there is none, is there?

It is my opinion that the only use to which religion is put in this world is to address the individual's emotional response to the proposition that "there's nothing out there", and "there's only us here".

It is not a personal attack on you.

Nor did I suggest you should "think for yourself". I'm sure that you do.

I was merely suggesting that there is an inverse correlation between our growing understanding of what is around us, and our need to trust others to think on our behalf. Go look at the sentence again.

>>(Nor have you provided any kind of alternative, a problem that Nietzsche recognized).<<

Nietzsche's life and work is a classic example of what happens if you try to think too hard about all this. He literally drove himself mad, trying to come to terms with the fact that the only alternative to God is ourselves.

He saw chaos:

"I foresee something terrible, Chaos everywhere. Nothing left which is of any value; nothing which commands: Thou shalt!"

The giveaway is his anxiety to be told what to do by an external "somebody", which turned into a fear, when he continued to dig and dig, and still found nothing.

To this extent, he is a classic example of someone in desperate need of that emotional crutch.

It's sad, in a way, that he was too intellectual to allow himself that luxury.

Peter the Believer please note:

S.116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Ah yes, that is exactly what it says Seneca, but what it means is what matters.

S.116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, which means that we must not depart from the existing Christian system without a referendum under s 128.

or for imposing any religious observance, which means we must continue to observe the religious observance in existance in courts at Federation. That is the Father 's representative on the throne/bench. The twelve apostles as the judges on the right hand of the Father, representing Jesus Christ,and the Holy Spirit in the collective minds of the twelve, representing the promise of Matthew 18:20.

or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, prohibits the free exercise of any religion, by no longer offering/allowing at Commonwealth expense, a true Christian common law court to be convened in that court.

and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth, which means that so long as a Justice owes allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second as the representative of God Almighty,he must uphold Her oath, which is to uphold the Christian Gospels.

This is typical lawyer deception and why Jesus Christ warned us against a lawyer takeover of the Law in Luke 11 :46 and 52. The plain English words of S 116 and S 79 Constitution, mean we should never have to worship one of the State Appointed False Gods, who befoul the benches of all Courts in Australia.

S 2 Judiciary Act 1903, was enacted that whenever a Judge sits in a Court an Australian is entitled to a new trial. The word Appeal includes an application for a new trial and any proceedings to review or call in question the proceedings decision or jurisdiction of any Court or Judge. We would be free of Courts and Judges, and have courts with judges, if we just got totally fed up with lawyers dictating to us. Freedom to follow our faith would be very good for Australia.

Undoubtedly, Nietzsche was a megalomaniacal philosopher of culture with penetrating psychological and cultural insights, forcing us to face up to the half-truths and evasions in the history of philosophy and in our own lives. Very few have been able to travel to where he has been – indeed, he’s one of the most admirable of all atheists, whose thinking and logic lead to the inevitable conclusion. The honesty we have with ourselves when ‘alone’. It was certainly enough to drive him mad.

A ‘playful’ kind of wisdom and crazy merry making allowed for a recovery from the dreary and tortured emotional Romanticism of his age. His outrageous songs, wonderful parables, riddles and ditties allowed this nerdish and nifty dresser – a philology professor, a place in history. He assumed, morality is purely a matter of interpretation taking us away from nature – a ‘nature’ which is essentially morally neutral. "Evil", afterall, is really an invention of the weak to control the independent brilliance of the strong, who define their own place in the world. Western intellectual culture and Christianity especially, blames it ‘all on the heavens’ – people prefer the world of their illusions, with their comfortable pretend games about a real God as a foundation for morality.

The Übermensch is not the perfect human, living life according to the moral law, for there is no moral law. Once having fully understood, there is no God to command or reward, most are daunted. In the vision of Nietzsche, most react to this ‘impossible’ state through violence and self-destruction, wars will rage, hopelessness will reign. The ‘Great War’ proceeded, the second one reinforced his prediction.

If we survive the madness that results, once the death of God is recognised, a new morality extends, so it seems, transcending the ‘moral law’; truth transcending the truths of human knowledge. Love and joy and community are created out of nothing while on the way of life, somehow created with courage and humility, and somehow, created beautifully. Don the mask of the outstanding individual, and you, too, can experience a transformative if not, illusory moment.