Sells tells us that the "theological problem of modernity has yet to be completely articulated".

This statement just aint true.

And besides which the left brained power and control seeking mind that is at the root of ALL theology is incapable of truly Understanding anything.

Meanwhile the "problem of modernity" was thoroughly answered when the first edition of this book was published in 1972

http://www.kneeoflistening.com

The author then spent 36 very patient years discussing every possible aspect of human and cosmic existence. The results of which are thoroughly summarized at this reference.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon

Peter has known of this extraordinary Wisdom Teaching for almost a decade now, and yet he continues to write the same completely unmodified dim-witted nonsense year after year (with no change whatsoever)

Plus this reference gives an insight into the authors relation to the Great Tradition altogether.

http://www.dabase.org/divemerg.htm

Rhian, that's simply not credible.

>>My understanding of Sells’ argument is not that atheists can’t appreciate poetry or opera, but that science and scientific study is not adequate to equip us to appreciate them.<<

You extract this understanding from the same text that I read.

"It is “hard” rationality in that contradictions or paradoxes cannot be tolerated. God cannot be three persons in one, Christ cannot have both a divine nature and a human nature. But on a more common level, a loving relationship cannot hold both love and hatred, devotion and resentment. Evils in the world cannot have a shade of good. Hard rationality does not give us a language that can deal with the world human beings inhabit, that world of moral complexity, relational fragmentation, a beauty hidden beneath the ugly. In particular it cannot deal with a crucified God.

Those who strictly adhere to this kind of rationalism must find themselves at odds with the human. No amount of scientific study in psychology, anthropology, social science, and so on, will be able to approach that which is deeply human. They should, but often are not, cut off from the great cultural expressions of our society. How can they 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?"

Given the full context, including the part about science not being able to accept that "God cannot be three persons in one, Christ cannot have both a divine nature and a human nature" or "deal with a crucified God", how is it possible to escape the fact that Sells is talking about non-Christians?

What clues does he provide that he is actually referring to Christians who find themselves ruled by logic?

Are there such people?

Given his own protestation that there "is one thing that you all seem to forget and that is my main career was as a scientist", how can we avoid the obvious conclusion?

Sorry, Rhian.

Doesn't ring true.

Sells seems to deny that non-Christians have the exquisite feelings and sensibilities of Christians. My King James Bible is 1078 pages. The Jewish Bible or as Christians call it the Old Testament takes up the first 815 pages or 76%. Jews wrote it without thought of Christianity. Mistranslation of Isaiah served the Christian mythology. In the Hebrew almah (a young woman) shall give birth. The Greek version has parthenos (a virgin) giving birth. The rest of the Bible was all written by Jews with the possible exception of Luke. Luke takes up 35 pages. About 3% of what is called the Christian Bible was actually written by Christians.

The Bible is a non-Christian book. What would Sells replace it by?

Pericles,
>>in order for a religionist to feel good about their own beliefs, they frequently find it necessary to i) decry the religious beliefs of others or ii) ascribe unfavourable characteristics to non-believers. <<

I agree to a point. I would have agreed 100% had you written
" in order for some people to feel good about their own beliefs/unbeliefs/world-view, they frequently find it necessary to i) decry the beliefs/world-views of others or ii) ascribe unfavourable characteristics to non-believers or believers, especially Christians."

One just has to read not only Sellick's article and runner's posts, but ALL post e.g. in this thread.

Waterboy and Rhian,
If it were up to me, I would sack Sells, and give you the job. You seem to be much better (and fairer) at his articles than he is.

By George ,
It was not I that that condemned the Believer or Unbeliever .

Fundamentalist experience seems to produce fear and a hidden uncertainty in man and woman - this is probably our Human Nature working for us in the background checking to see if we really are on the right track to make it through to tomorrow .