socratease,
>>I read up a lot of modern books on science and spirituality by writers like Hans Kung who was sacked by the arch Conservitive Roman catholic Church for his open and modern visions of Reality.<<
If you mean the Roman Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), Küng was not “sacked”, only had his licence to teach Catholic theology withdrawn, for the same reason as any organisation would withdraw the licence to speak on its behalf if it contradicted, or even just confused, its official position. Küng continued to teach “ecumenical theology“ at Tübingen until his retirement in 1996, and his priestly faculties were never revoked.

There was never a serious disagreement between Vatican and Küng concerning science and religion, only on specific Catholic matters like interpretation of the Scriptures, and discipline. In 2005 he presented to Benedict XVI the original of the book you quoted from during their meeting (unclear as to who initiated it). Actually, topics of science and religion, Küng’s concept of World-ethos (Weltethos), were the most discussed, no apparent disagreements here, although Küng himself later stated that he did not request that Benedict XVI restore his license to teach Catholic theology.

As to the book itself, I own and have read only the original, so I cannot quote from it, although your quote is very much to the point, and certainly no educated Christian, including the Pope, could disagree with it. I liked the book as well, however Küng is not a (natural) scientist (neither is the Pope), so in some sense I find the writings of scientist-theologians that I often mention here (Barbour, Peacocke, Polkinghorne) more insightful.

As to Küng, I personally prefer his earlier, though much more voluminous, book “Does God Exist?” (Collins 1980) where he comes through as a specialist in humanities and social sciences and the fact, that he e.g. does not understand much mathematics needed for the understanding of contemporary models of the physical world, is irrelevant.

socratease,
I agree with you that one should not use “bollocks” in discussions like this. But neither should one use statements like “no thinking and honest Christian really believes in the Old God of the Old testament nor the New Testament” when refering to other people’s world-views, just because they accepts that “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and “God of philosophers and scientists” are two manifestations of the same God (in the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature respectively, to use Galileo’s insight).

As a mathematician, I would not expect to learn deep new insights from a lecture aimed at a non-specialist audience, though I accept that if properly presented such popular lectures are necessary and useful. For the same reasons, or even more so, I do not expect to gain world-shattering philosophical and theological insights from a sermon to “ordinary” folks of whatever denomination.

Had the Bible been written in a language reflecting our contemporary scientific understanding of the material world, had the dogmas been formulated as laws referring to reality (objective as well as subjective) as some of us understand them today - even here there is no common agreement - you might have found them, and sermons based on them, more acceptable. However, in a couple of centuries, or even millennia, into the future, they would be as outdated and naive as are literal interpretations of the Scripture and dogmas today. So why not stick to them as they are and keep their exact wording and time-dependent interpretations interrelated but separate.

By George,you're a scream,pal!!
Do you have any idea just how many priest-teachers and scientists nolonger bother with their former participation in Catholic Churches? Whatever happened to people like Matthew Fox, Karen Armstrong to name just two better known authorities who refgused to sell their consciences to the Vatican.
So there was never any serious disagreement between the Vat and Kung concerning science and religion??I dont suppose you would call belief in the theistic divine a serious matter. The ramifications of sciences cut right across RC theological positions. You went on to say "he did not ask B16 to restore his licence to teach Catholic theology" Hello! "Restore" means that it was revoked once before in order to have it restored. For God's sake,Georgie old boy, make up your mind. Either he was sacked or he was not, but dont prevaricate and contradict yourself. And stop trying to bluff everyone.It doesnt work any longer.
For years the Vat has been burning questioning minds at the stake, torturing them into silence (dont say this hasnt been happening, Georgie!) we all know our history better than that to believe otherwise. What has the record been like in the South American Catholic states like Nicaragua to hame just one example. No serious disagreement, indeed. Your choice of euphemisms is amusing. The Vat is a great silencer of dissent.The trouble with you apologists is that you all seem to labour under the delusion the world hasnt caught upwith the multiple exposures of this kind ...or you wish we havent. The Vat's hold on people's consciences through the fear of excommunications no longer has dissenter quivering in fear.
socratease

'TR, let me tell you something about myself.......'

Then you should know better socratease. So why don't you be honest with yourself, admit finding God is like locating the end of a rainbow, and become an atheist. You know it makes perfect sense.

Well to all the Dawkin's critics you will be pleased to note the release of a new book by David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300111903

Just the early bits gleaned from the book in terms of the positive impact of Christianity and its role in shaping the world as we know and understand it. This argument - if the book follows this line of debate - still falls into the same trap of talking about impact as though this concept in itself is proof of the existence of God.

I will read it though before saying too much. Maybe a few of us can read the book and start another thread at a later date to discuss it in further detail.

Pelican
cant wait to hear from you re.- david Hart's book.Thanks for alertingme to it. I find him eminently readable even when i cannot always accept his pov.
Thanks again or should I say mouth full of good fish as a blessing!
LOL!!
Sorry.

socratease