From now on, any time I hear the mantra:

"Religion is just another way of knowing..."

my response will be "Knowing WHAT?"

Let's have just ONE undeniable fact, expressed in plain English, which has been discovered or derived from religion and not from science, logic, reason or empirical common sense.

Just ONE.

Well?

Fractelle,
I fail to see how I’ve “spoilt” anything by a complimentary association of two religions – you seem, however, to be denigrating one above the other. Crabsy clearly and simply saw my meaning, one which you seem unable to comprehend.

If you wish to label me or any other for being a hypocrite, where we endeavor to: Try to live in peace with everyone, to be humble and gentle, be patient with each other, making allowance for each other's faults because of our love, and to pursue a godly life, along with our faith, love and perseverance etc. then there is little more we can say.

Jon J,
Interestingly science is suggesting to us, roughly speaking, that we tend to develop “two minds.” There is our “symbolic intelligence,” where all the thoughts we have are in words and mathematics but the biggest part of our brain, however, is for “subsymbolic intelligence,” or our ‘mouse’ brain - all it has are images, senses, actions and feelings, and actions come from the subsymbolic brain. Two “minds” would suggest also two different types of 'knowing'.

Conventional religious beliefs are beliefs expressed in words, propagated in words, and thought about in words. Our ability to think in words and in mathematics is only a recent development and to master this process effectively we need to work at it. Certain scientific conjecture has it than we are evolving towards a new kind of brain, which may be called “the sapient brain.” In the sapient brain, the symbolic and subsymbolic intelligence are more integrated. They work together smoothly and seamlessly (to the extent that intelligence can ever be smooth).

Those who adhere religiously to the oppressive symbolic way of thinking (e.g. religious fundamentalists) are forever doomed to be total hypocrites and forever cut off from anything truly real in the spiritual realm. Their only hope is to give it up (as did Aquinas in his later life) and ground themselves in the real roots of life, completely, without barnacles. These real roots belong to all of humanity, and all life on earth.

relda, I suppose I should thank you for supplying an example of a statement of Sells, which I could actually agree with.

"Paul Tillich (whom Sells finds “impossible”) perhaps had the intention of stirring controversy, but with a point in the following:
"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

I suspect Tillich was an admirer of Descartes. To me, Descartes second most memorable assertion was along the lines of "Those who agree with me are merely demonstrating they have the wit to understand me. Those who disagree, are demonstrating they do not."
The way to win a philosophical argument is to come up with an inarguable (or insufferable) statement, even if it adds nothing to the discourse.
I was raised 'in the faith', and while I reject even the remote possibility of a 'personal God', I still have just a feeling that there is something more.
I suspect faith is nothing more than the inability to escape a deeply rooted paradigm.

Doesn't this strike you as just a little self-serving, relda?

>>"Do we really need the concept of a God (or many Gods) to make us human?" A fully balanced view of our anthropogenic history would clearly suggest the affirmative.<<

This "fully balanced view" would of course be your own.

On the other hand, a "fully balanced view" might equally suggest that mankind has simply invented an external force that he calls God in order fill a knowledge gap.

You - possibly inadvertently - admit this.

>>Unless we are about to enter a brave new world with an ‘imagination deficit syndrome’ (my phrase) [sic], the concept of God is more than likely to remain<<

Here, you clearly suggest that God can only exist in the imagination.

No imagination. No God.

However, I think you really meant to echo Sells, in his effort to arrogate the entire spectrum of non-linear thought to his religion.

"How can [atheists] understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

The argument that imagination, and emotions, and feelings, and dreams, are all the sole prerogative of Christians does not hold water, I'm afraid.

Back in the real world, the manner in which religion is practised strongly suggests that it is the precise opposite of "imagination".

A belief in a god or gods is the position to which an individual retreats when they actively desire to be rid of imagination, and settle back into blissful ignorance.

This state is characterized by an unwillingness to accept the reality of our short span on this earth, and a disinclination to explore horizons any further than the convenient myth they have invented for themselves.

It matters little to anyone else that you choose this path, relda.

But your - and Sells' - continual harping on the inadequacy of the non-religious is nothing short of offensive.

Peter once again exhibits his fear of scientific rationality and "atheism" and rallies against these "foes". What he fails to mention is that his kind of old time Christianity is doomed, not because of Humanists, Atheists, Pagans and modernity but because of people like the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea. With about 830,000 members (2007), it is the largest Christian congregation in South Korea and in the whole world. It reflects the trend in the US and much of the world towards churches which advocate personal wealth (and health) through belief and prayer. A complete aberration of the kind of Christianity Peter believes in these churches represent the Christian religion of the future.
Peter, I would take you concerns about threats to your belief system more seriously if you could identify your enemy better. No atheist to my knowledge has claim "wealth" or "health" benefits or claims to hold a a superior moral position to yourself. We do not hold meetings to condemn you or influence political parties. There is no federal or state budget for a "fight" against religion. Your problem is with other believers, not us.

Peter Sellick: extremist.“What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.” from Bobby Kennedy found here http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/08/17/time-to-talk-about-extremists/#comments