TR, i'm not sure who you are including with the word "rationalist" but your claim sounds improbably universal. some may attempt to disprove god on the basis of logic alone (which on its face sounds as silly as the varied arguments *for* god), but i doubt that it's common.

in any case, though there may be sophisticated arguments one may come up with against (or for) god, it doesn't change my very unsophisticated response to rhian: religious belief is open to question by science when religious belief implies (or amounts to) a material belief.

Bushbasher
Yes, science has every right to question seven-day creation, virgin births, walking on water and any other statement that Christians may make about the operation of the natural world derived from faith or biblical interpretation. In fact, I think science does Christians a favour in affirming that these are not historical accounts or statements about the operation of the natural world. The bible is not a science textbook, and we are wrong if we treat it that way.

Pericles,
I agree, Sells’ “hard rationalist” is a straw man, and there are no “steely-eyed slaves-to-logic”. But I think that’s the point - he’s painted this deliberately as a caricature to highlight its implausibility. The argument is not that atheists (or even rationalists) don’t appreciate poetry or love their families. Rather, he is pointing out that no-one lives their lives by rationalist calculus alone. The issue is to understand where this form of thinking is useful and illuminating, and where it isn’t

Dear Peter Selick,

Humans had beleif systems in historic and prehistoric times. Every civilisation had a beleif system that underpinned it and motivated it, whic halso involved some kind of sacrifice or self-denial.

As John Ness so eloquently pointed out (OLO 15th July 2008), humans have built in sense of moral values before any organised religion came on the scene.

The historical and pre-historical eforts to understand the nature of human self-denial, self-discipline or sacrifice, should not be derided, but should be held as a source of wonder.

There are several points why so many people in Western societies are turning away from what passes as the church's teachings.

The meaning of "love thy neighbour as you love yourself", or "love thy enemies as you love yourelf", is not clarified. The modern meaning of "love" has different connotations to what it was than the original Greek word "agape". Yet no attempt seems to be made to alter the public's perception of that word. "Agape" means something akin to care, concern, loyalty, or empathy. Therefore the saying "have concern for others as you have concern for yourself", or turning it round, "as you understand yourself, so you will understand others", - sound completly different.

The other claim that Jesus died on the cross so others may live, - happens to be in a language the church was using when addressing a population of illiterates or at best, semi-litterates. What Jesus most likely to have demonstrated is for humans to do their duty, to do their best, to have self-sacrifice and discipline, irrespective of the dangers, and to work towards something outside of any human person, and greater than them.

Why this "outside of them" has to be personified, as the gods of the ancient Greeks were personified in their myths, is a bone of contention by many, not just the confirmed atheists such as Richard Dawkins. He and his fellow atheists may just rail against a perception of a deity of their own making.

Regards, Stephen J. Cheleda

'TR, i'm not sure who you are including with the word "rationalist" but your claim sounds improbably universal. some may attempt to disprove god on the basis of logic alone (which on its face sounds as silly as the varied arguments *for* god), but i doubt that it's common.'

Remember that I am talking about the monotheistic God here. Not the the non-descript deistic style God. It is very common for modern philosophers to completely debunk Jehovah/Allah. David Hume and Bertrand Russell started the modern trend and it hasn't really stopped. The latest entries into the mix are Victor Stengers 'God: The Failed Hypothesis' and the excellent 'Atheism Explained' by David Ramsay Steele

bushbasher,
When you say, “ … he[sells]creates all the angst of an unswattable march fly”. I’ve obviously misread your previous postings – a passionate and often colorful diatribe, ie., “Sellick, what is the point of your writing, for the twenty-fifth time, your ignorant and divisive and pointless, special-pleading claptrap? … sellick is simply a dishonest,divisive,arrogant,insulting,self-aggrandizing two-bit preacher… posts certainly don't get up my nose like sellick's crap… etc. etc.” Is it, you find the common “unswattable march fly” to be annoying-to the point of extreme provocation?

grim,
“I'm sorry, should I regard this as an argument, or an axiom?” Neither. But the axioms of a ‘faith’ given in reply to Fractelle easily take on the hypocritical for the half-hearted practitioner – something of which we’re all guilty.

Pericles,
As I’ve pointed out in other posts, some of my closest friends are declared atheists – they are far from being “emotional cripples”. Your statement with regards to atheists is therefore simply irrelevant to me, and as Rhian has given good commentary on sells’ article, this would hardly be a part of his (sells) “cadenza” either – although this continues, for some reason, to form a prominent part of your perception of him.

Again, Pericles, you make incorrect inference by saying, “I claim that atheists suffer from a "imagination deficit syndrome", and you continue to reinforce my initial “accusation”. My point isn’t that a good imagination is available only to an elite few but that god, more often than not, has figured prominently within man’s imagination throughout history.

Our imagination, however, can only be a part player in finding reality. Often, as with any story told, Biblical narrative uses metaphor to help an audience “shape” its experience. “But the attempt to ‘make sense’ of the world elides with dangerous ease into the attempt to make the world, in our imagination, conform to how we would have it be.” (Gerardus van der Leeuw: Sacred and Profane Beauty).

I’d suggest Tillich’s statement, "The God of theism is dead" would make room for all sorts of possibilities – including one for atheists.

reida, the thing is that sellicks' arrogant attacks are repeated and irritating, but meaningless. that's why suggestions of "angst" are silly, and comparisons to annoying bugs are appropriate.