Before the GB's dive in great piece. As an atheist I don't think that spirituality will even completely die out in humans but organized religion has been in decline for sometime and will eventually die, good riddance to it too.

Not so fast! “The idealist/religious approach arose from the use of magic and spells with the practitioners, the witchdoctors, evolving into priests with their prayers and ceremonies. The materialist/scientific approach arose from experiencing the real world by actually handling it.” This is an entirely false dichotomy. What do you think was going on in the history of Israel? This was a nation that learnt its lessons from its experience of being in the world, it reflected on its experience and wrote a theology that reflected that experience. One of the lessons it learnt was that God could not be understood as a supernatural being along with other beings in the world. The theology of Israel and subsequently the Church is much more sophisticated than that, or should be. I have no sympathy with McGrath’s supernatural God, it is more a product of modernity than of the theology. Unfortunately he leaves himself open to justified attacks such as this one. I suggest the writer read some proper theology, perhaps he should look at some of my articles: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=118

Kenny... we don't need to 'jump in' as u say, Mr Warren has already 'made' our case by declaring:

'Dawkins is a Scientist, McGrath is a Theologian"

All Warren has done is confirm our long held suspicion that 'Scientists and atheists are not always objective' :)

Alister McGrath brief bio.

He gained first class honours in chemistry in June 1975, and began research in molecular biophysics in the Oxford University Department of Biochemistry under the supervision of Professor Sir George K. Radda, FRS, who recently retired as chairman of the Medical Research Council. He was elected to an E.P.A. Cephalosporin Research Studentship at Linacre College, Oxford, for the academic year 1975-6, and to a Domus Senior Scholarship at Merton College, Oxford, for the period 1976-8. During these three years, he carried out scientific research alongside studying for the Oxford University Final Honour School of Theology. In December 1977, he was awarded an Oxford D.Phil. for his research in the natural sciences, and gained first class honours in Theology in June 1978

Quite an interesting article.

I could infer that Warren might be saying “Have faith in God but believe in science”.

His discourse on emotional indoctrination aside, why is it not possible to have a faith in God and certainty in science? Can anyone suggest to me that this is wrong? Why?

Whether or not one has a faith/belief in a supreme being should not colour or bias their involvement in the real world, as far as interacting with it go. If one has a mythical belief that ‘God will save me’ in times of physical danger, I would suppose that one would not be long for the Earth. I believe, Sells, you may have hinted at something like this, preferring the spirituality of ones belief rather than the physical? (My apologies if I misunderstood).

Rather, the presence, dare I say the point of God, would be to provide one with a framework of values and ethics in which to live. Some claim sole rights to these values and ethics, like a patent. I would point out that many who do not believe in God hold strong and high-minded values of their own, so cannot agree that one must believe in God to find them.

I would say that there really is no point to the debate. An individual either has faith or not. How this affects the physical world, I cannot see. Faith in God is a journey to, in some minds, personal salvation and enlightenment. Involvement in the sciences in the physical world is a journey of discovery of what ‘God gave us’. At the end of the day, there is no proving God. There cannot be. Faith is a foundation of religious belief and cannot be tested by man – only by one’s God.

The issue of emotional manipulation/indoctrination is another matter and perhaps should be left for another article. Any takers?

The debate will go on, until evolution presents us with more understanding as to what our universe consists of. I agree with Warren, that one you can experience and record, the other is emotion and hearsay. I actually feel that it is somewhere in the middle and both physical science and supernatural science are both real, they just occupy different spaces.

The supernatural could be what we feel and sense from the interaction of the different dimensions that exist within and around us. It is just interpreted as being this so called all imposing benevolent being. Science believes it is right in what it discovers, but it is always wrong, just learning to understand more.

So the inference by Warren that science goes forward and religion stays the same is part illusion. Both stay the same, religion accepts nothing that may take away its deity mentality, science finds it difficult to accept that there may be energies and intelligent powers that are a part of our lives, that influence them.

Until religion drops their fantasy and science opens its eyes to the possibilities that may actually surround us, then nothing will change. A place to start, would be to drop the big bang and god theories, accept that there may be other logical answers to existence and where it is going. Luckily, science when shown the error of its ways, changes quickly, unlike religions, which has trouble accepting its own history, let alone its future.

For all we know, space could be filled with intelligent life that is another dimension, but a part of ours. If you were an ant and were looking up at a car, because your understanding was at ant level, then it may look dark, alien and empty.

Then again our universe could be a molecule in a drop of water falling from a tap, when it hits the bottom, splat. I just hope god drops by before then, or we will all have gone to water.

To Sells: The distinction between scientific investigation of the world, which we have to use every day, and our belief in the existence of a supernatural world, is not a false dichotomy. The point that I tried to make was that no working scientist (including McGrath when he was one) ever uses the concept of a supernatural force, either God or any other spirit, as part of their explanation of a phenomenon. Any idea of supernatural effects is irrelevant for the work of scientists just as it is irrelevant for the everyday work of carpenters and engineers. The idea of the supernatural with its gods and angels exists only in the mind. Perhaps I can refer you back to my previous article, The Science of Religion, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3252, where I tried to explain how the dichotomy arose, millennia before the Christian God became an idea in some human minds.

Your suggestion that I should read some proper theology is no doubt meant to help, thank you . I have read some of your own articles of course but my problem is how do I know that your theology is more proper than Alister McGrath’s? The problem is that, since the idea of the supernatural only exists in the mind and there are so many different minds, there is no one proper theology.

To understand anything in the world it is always wise to understand its history, its evolution. The present raiments and ceremonies of our clerics clearly betray the origin in the distant past when similar magic spells and procedures were used to gain the favour of one or more of the many gods then regarded as populating the spirit world. If you don't accept that, how do you explain it?

The false dichotomy I referred to is between empirical natural science and “made up” religion. The religion of Israel was unique among the nations because it was shaped by experience, they reflected on history. I also think that to label all theology as having its object a supernatural god is a mistake. I know that most Christians believe in the supernatural and that is surely a problem. However properly theology does its work without this presupposition. I know that takes the wind out of the sails of atheists but you will have to dig deeper to scupper Christian theology by reference to charactures of it. Feuerbach was right with his criticism of popular religion, most of it is a projection of human characteristics. However his criticism was not terminal for Christian theology but was a useful stimulant to think more deeply as were the other post Enlightenment anti theologians.

John, you write that "The materialist/scientific approach arose from experiencing the real world by actually handling it. The resulting science is really the systematic collection of experience of the world as a basis for extending control of that world. There is no equivalent in religious theory or practice ..."

In my experience, spiritual growth requires an understanding of the deep reality of the world, as it is, from moment to moment. About 50 years ago, Carl Alverez got a Nobel prize. After 20 years of experimentation with his "bubble chamber", he estimated that sub-atomic particles arise and decay at 10 to the power of 22 times a second. (more follows)

2500 years earlier, after deep introspection, the Buddha described sub-atomic particles and said that in the time he snapped his fingers or blinked his eye, these particles arose and passed away "trillions upon trillions" of times. At the time of that translation, a trillion was understood as a million million million - 10 ttpo 18, an approximation close to Alvarez's figure.

Through his own experience of reality as it manifested in his own mind and body at the subtlest level, the Buddha understood that nothing is permanent, everything is in a flux, there is nothing to attach to. Through this understanding, he was able to eradicate the ignorance, delusion, craving and aversion which underlie the unsatisfactory nature of our conditioned existence (an existence which arises through conditions, each sub-atomic particle paving the way for the next, and each thought and reaction paving the way for the next).

Alvarez' understanding was external, intellectual, based on his scientific experimentation rather than his direct experience. According to people I knew who visited him at Berkeley, he was a bundle of tensions, his indirect knowledge did not provide the benefits of the Buddha's direct experience. (more follows)

(continued) The Buddha, of course, did not found a religion, although many religions have arisen in his name. He taught a rational and scientific technique by which we can attain the aims canvassed by religions, by which we can develop wisdom, love and compassion, through,as you put it, "the systematic collection of experience of the world", in a process of detached observation of oneself. The role of faith here is not in belief in the supernatural, but that one's own benefits from practising as taught by the Buddha strengthen one's conviction as to the merits of the practice. Without this experience-based faith, it's harder to practice; but faith will get you nowhere without a practice based in deep understanding of reality.

John,
Where are the historical records of some million years of evolutionary development in religious practise and thought? Is it just based upon assumption that primitive tribes have been doing it for a million years? Is your view of religion based upon the same assumption?

Quote, "the need for human beings to control their environment from the very earliest days of their existence some million years ago. The idealist/religious approach arose from the use of magic and spells with the practitioners, the witchdoctors, evolving into priests with their prayers and ceremonies."

God is Spirit not a being. Science can give sequence to events but not reason. Why life was formed from absolutely nothing is religion. How life was formed from absolutely nothing is science. As to date science has no explanation on how nothing can form reality, it relies upon a doctrine of faith.

Dear Faustino :)
my head exploded at the point where you mentioned such things as 'compassion and love' ... just after you finished declaring that the Bhudda had determined that all life was about science and sub atomic particles..... Please think about that.

How does love and compassion have anything to do with a universe of nothing more than atomic particles ?

I commend to you, a reflection on Christ. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, by this all men shall know that you are my disciples, that you love one another"

If I may say so respectfully, without seeming "my religion is better than yours" (hopefully) I think you will agree that Gautama Buddha died, and that was the end. Christ, with the attestation of many, including Paul who sought to destroy the Church in its infancy, rose from death and in this event the world has 'hope'.

I cannot see any reason for us to think in terms of love or compassion apart from a divine authority for it. (speaking purely philosophically) In practice we all know that it would be a very uncomfortable world without these things.

On science and religion, I don't find any major issue apart from the detailed chronology of creation which seems to be a sticking point for some. Genesis 1 follows quite closely the scientifically stated order of events, but attributes them to 'days'.

Rather than keeping science and religion separate, I approach science as the intriguing unfolding discovery of 'how God did it'. I prefer to avoid dramatic confrontations on the point of origins, as the scientific position is constantly changing.

The events of History, particularly Salvation History cannot be ignored when forming views about Science/Religion.

Dear David Boaz, most moral codes involve abstaining from actions which harm oneself and others. When such unwholesome actions are removed, it doesn’t leave a vacuum – the pure mind is naturally filled with love and compassion. That’s not a belief or an assertion, it’s an observation.

The process described by the Buddha is one of self-purification. There are four elements to the mind. When any stimulus affects one of our sense doors – a vision on the eye, a sound on the ear etc – the first part of the mind, roughly “consciousness”, arises – we recognize that a sound has come. The second part of the mind, perception, then applies an evaluation of the stimulus, the sound – for example, words of praise are evaluated as “good”, words of abuse are evaluated as “bad.” This leads to the third part of the mind, sensation, which may be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, depending on our evaluation. As with the sub-atomic particles of which we are composed, these mental processes are going on continually, arising and passing away with great velocity.

Following the sensation, the fourth part of the mind starts working – sankhara (Pali), reaction. We react to pleasant sensations with liking, to unpleasant sensations with disliking. We build stocks of these sankharas, these reactions; the liking turns into craving, attachment, the disliking turns into aversion. This craving and aversion in response to transient, ever-changing phenomena are the cause of our suffering and unhappiness, why we at times behave badly towards ourselves or to others. We identify as me, mine, myself what are actually impersonal, changing phenomena. With our reactions, we create mental conditioning which circumscribes our responses to the world. (continued below)

The body and mind are very closely interrelated. It’s easier to observe the sensations arising on the body than the mental processes. (For example, if when you are angry you try to observe your anger, which is abstract, you will tend to focus on the cause or object of your anger and get embroiled in it.) The training is to learn to observe the sensations with detachment, to understand their changing nature. When we do this, we stop the process of reaction, we stop creating new sankharas; the old stock of sankharas, conditioning, comes to the surface, and if we remain detached, equanimous, they are eradicated. The causes of our tensions, of our unwholesome behaviour, are eradicated. This is the process of purification, of dissolution of the ego. When the impurities are removed, what remains is purity.

Now, in my case, this process has a long way to go; but I have for example through the practice eradicated, or largely eradicated, deep conditioning from childhood trauma which had led to my life being dominated by fear of rejection, and a reluctance to make a commitment. I have seen many people more developed than I whose lives are filled with love, compassion and service to others, most notably S N Goenka of Burma/ India and the late Achaan Cha of Thailand.

All spiritual practices and most major religions aim to help individuals to attain this state, to develop wisdom, love, compassion, purity. It’s so simple – why do people feel the need to dress it up and add complexity?

David, Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven lies within you. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if you use this technique to take a look inside. Nothing in the technique contravenes Christian teaching; but it does help you become a better Christian. More info: www.dhamma.org

There's a beginning in chronology of molecular existence, the Chaldean account in the Bible stating “Let there be light” identifies that beginning for both processes of time and space. As molecular existence occurs there's ignition in the interactivity within and between the molecular structures formed. Without molecular existence there's no measure of space and without molecule ignition there's no light. Our universe is not an inert design; it's an igniting molecular design so change creating structure and the breakdown of those structures is constantly occurring. God did not create the universe with eternal plastic or gold or silver, which are relatively stable [inert]. Change, ignition, decay, death of living species are the very nature and design of our universe.

Genesis first chapter in the Bible predates Moses by at least a thousand years (2,000BC) and formed the basis of ancient Chaldean science and religion. The Chaldean account captures the concept of ordered design as created and overseen by spiritual minds forming a changing and developing universe. For man the chronology of his molecular structure ends the same, it constantly decays and takes new forms. However as in all life man reproduction that allows the continuum; but in the thought capacities of man there is intelligence that reflects the spirit designer of the universe that is able to abstractly reason, design and prepare for his future. The ancient sciences may have been to our mind primitive but they captured the essence of what the universe was about. Molecular change is seen as the nature of being and man is designed with that programme ending with his own demise and decay. That is why the spiritual aspects of his existence are so important, aspects like education to the new generation, faith and purpose in a future.

-------

The human psyche is not a vacant slate upon which external stimuli develop our reactions and responses. We are an already programmed psyche and experiences may affect us. No two persons respond or react identically because of our pre-programming. The pain and pleasure response mechanism is already pre-programmed in our design.

Dear Faustino
I read your post closely, and it seems to me that in terms of psychology I can't find fault with what you present. It all seems reasonable.

I find no difficulty in the idea of peace, love and compassion emerging from within us as we 'detach' ourselves as you put it from the 'reactionary' side of existence. Something 'bad' happens, (maybe more accurately stated "unpleasant" from someone) so, by your thinking we then realize our natural reaction might be to 'strike back', then detach ourselves from this, (knowing that our normal human reaction would create further conflict within ourselves) and go about our business as if it didn't happen. We emerge as the victor rather than the victim, the perpetrator has to live with the emotional consequences of his/her actions.

I would prefer to view this condition as 'peace based on the absence of conflict' and I think is part of our nature. No threat/pain='happy'.

But I don't think Buddhism will leave it at that point, because without a context/framework within which people can have a sense of meaning,purpose,direction and hope its just good psychology in an absurd universe. Is not the concept of 'Karma/reincarnation' that framework ?
This is where 'popular' Buddhism departs from 'good psychology' and becomes 'religion'.
If pure Buddhism does not teach the Karma/Reincarnation cycle, then would you share with me what the actual framework is which gives hope ?

The hebrew idea of 'Shalom' is much deeper than 'peace based on the absense of conflict'. It is that special overwhelming peace that one experiences by knowing that a personal loving God is actually interested in our affairs and lives.

The kingdom of God is... 'within'. This is sometimes translated "in your midst" but in fact both are true. Christ, the King, moved among them during his earthly life, and now dwells 'within' our hearts.

Can I recommend a reading of John's gospel chapter 14 to 16 ? You will see there the relationship between the historical Christ, the outpoured Holy Spirit and our own peace and joy in daily life.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&version=31

I agree with Sells that the author should read some proper theology. It is misleading to say that god is a "supernatural being". God is not *a* being in the sense of being an object. This reification is a modern conceit. God is noumenon, not phenomenon. As Martin Buber said in "I and Thou," we have direct access to the noumenal in relating to another object/person in the mode of "you" rather than of "it". In love, silence, or contemplation with another we apprehend the essence or spirit of that thing. This is a sort of enchantment, because revelation comes as "giftedness". The prayerful person therefore "personalises" the whole world, and the whole world is incorporated in her self. (Religion is the mode of ego-expansion and liberalism is the mode of ego-annihilation.) But this radically empathetic mode of relating tends "upwards" to the Transcendent Source, which is the Creator Spiritus, or God. God is the Source of spiritual gift (grace). However, since God is spirit and not object, God is not "here" or "there" but interfuses all things, even as God is beyond them.

As William Temple said in Mens Creatrix, it is correct to analogise the spritual with the mental, for the mental is the highest form of being which we know. Mind animates Life with animates Matter on a scale of being: but Spirit animates Mind and brings it to wholeness. So we can hypothesise that the Creator Spirit is a mysterious personality, and beyond personality. Absolute Spirit is apprehensible in the created order as Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, which are forms of Transcendent Love: so Value proceeds from the divine life itself, even as does Being.

In the end metaphyics trumps science, because only metaphysics can answer the question "why should anything be?" The answer is an original will, or god: the first mover, the first cause and so on.

I could go on but it seems that the church must return to metaphysics in this vein if it is to defeat the claims of the materialists.

It is not possible to respond within 350 or even a thousand words to the various ideas which have been generated by my original article. I can only attempt to clarify my position:

Every image of the real world, that is the world from which we get our food and shelter and handle every day, is generated in our brain by inputs from our sensory organs.

We can only confirm whether the things pictured in those images really exist is by trying to act on the image. For example if you see a pool of water ahead while in the desert and you try to put your bucket in only to see the water recede you know that the water is only an image, not real. In the same way fairies and ghosts do not exist outside the brain, they are images generated by the brain’s physiological processes.

How can one judge whether there exists a supernatural world governed by a trinity with an all-powerful Supreme Being? Only by trying to interact with one’s perception. Millions of people have prayed to that image for peace without any effect. Every drought has prayers for rain, again with no effect.

All those failures of response are explained away by those who insist that, nevertheless, there is a Being, outside the brain, with whom one can communicate. But those explanations are only arguments within oneself, an attempt to reconstruct the image to solve the obvious failure of the image to reveal itself as representing a reality.

In reply to Philo, I base my understanding on the remarkable research done by James Frazer and presented in his book “The Golden Bough”. One may disagree with his interpretations, of course, but only if one has a better explanation.

John,
We as mortal creatures of this design believe we have an ear and affinity with the designer, so prayer is natural. For you to simply identify the God of Creation as just human immagination is naive. The human psyche cries out for a sense of justice, a sense of purpose, and personal value in this Creation. This is what faith in God is about. There is more to our being than physical existence. The greatest experiences of the mind are spiritual, and essential to sound mental health.

Without faith life has no meaning beyond our sensory feelings. Fulfilling one's feelings then becomes the goal. Christianity is personal denial of immoral feelings for the greater benifit of corporate society. There is a reckoning of our moral accountability to the designer of human society. Your understanding of God is shallow, as true faith deals with coming to terms with reality and real prayer helps the mind to relate to reality. Faith keeps one sane when all seems unjust in our experiences.

You talk about God in spatial political terms like human government, handing out welfare to pleading souls. Sells has said God is not being, he is Spirit.

Quote, "How can one judge whether there exists a supernatural world governed by a trinity with an all-powerful Supreme Being? Only by trying to interact with one’s perception. Millions of people have prayed to that image for peace without any effect. Every drought has prayers for rain, again with no effect.

All those failures of response are explained away by those who insist that, nevertheless, there is a Being, outside the brain, with whom one can communicate. But those explanations are only arguments within oneself, an attempt to reconstruct the image to solve the obvious failure of the image to reveal itself as representing a reality."

DB, I appreciate that while you find some of my points uncomfortable, you pursue mutual understanding through dialogue. When I was 12-13, my church elders argued the John 14-16 approach, but I had to find my own truth. Everyone does ultimately, you can’t progress spiritually without that. Jesus is saying, in effect, you’ve seen me, what I am, my wisdom, love and compassion, that should be sufficient for you to have faith. Some of the disciples want something else, but that something else appears to be external to them. I have faith in my teacher, Goenka, but not just because of his qualities. I have faith because everything that I have been able to test through my own practice accords with what he teaches, with what he is. This is the approach that Goenka, like the Buddha, pursues: don’t believe something because I or anyone else says so, test everything, gain your own experiential knowledge. So while even non-Christians can have faith, from what we know, that Jesus had exceptional qualities to which we should all aspire, that is not sufficient.

I think your summation of my earlier points is incorrect. It’s not a question of when “something 'bad' happens … we then realize our natural reaction might be to 'strike back', then detach ourselves from this, (knowing that our normal human reaction would create further conflict within ourselves) and go about our business as if it didn't happen.” No, we have to deal with the world. And the process I described is not at that surface, cognitive level, it’s understanding at the deep experiential level the fundamental reality of change, eradicating the tendency to react, realising that there is no substantive, ongoing “me” to take umbrage at others’ actions, knowing that by reacting you harm both yourself and others. It’s hard to grasp without practising.

And I’m not a Buddhist, I don’t promote Buddhism, I can’t speak for it. The Buddha’s teaching does not offer “a framework which gives hope,” it gives you a path to come out of suffering through developing your own wisdom. (346 words!)

As I said before the GB's jump in and start talking rot. Sells "The religion of Israel was unique among the nations because it was shaped by experience, they reflected on history." This is such a silly statement I don't know where to start. All religions are shaped/invented/transformed by the people that believe them.
And as for DB's comment that Genesis 1 follows closely the current understanding of how the universe was created and life on earth started, well it just reminds everyone that you don't know much about the subject at hand. The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. Now I assume being a missionary your theology is up to scratch so it most be your understand of modern science that is lacking. Science is investigation not revelation.

John, that was very well put, it is hard for those that live within fantasy to see what is real and what is fallacy. Christians always fail to accept that the book they follow is complete fiction, in relationship to the original interlineal texts of both the old and new testaments.

Philo, Sells, “God is not being, he is Spirit.” define spirit and its expression. With the dubious history of religion and the current delusions displayed by the evangelical churches and their expressions through tongues etc, this spirit probably comes out of a bottle.

It is ludicrous to believe what Christians say, when they always refer to text that has been re-translated many times. The only true source of what is contained in the letters of the bible (new testament), is from the original texts. Then you have to determine which translation you are going to interpret, Nestlé-Aland 26 Greek Text, 1894 Textus Receptus, 1991 Byzantine Greek Text etc, or the numerous others that can be found within the Vatican and jewish archives, plus the many historical English, French and Latin versions.

Then you have to consider the other historical information that is a available that christians always fall to mention. The Nag hammadi, dead sea scrolls, the Nadan fragments, the 60AD compilation and the 9 other original letters that have been left out. Three of those are communications between Mary Magdalen, Sarah, (John in the bible)and others.

John 14-16 that BD refers to, is a modern US version. When you read that along side the interlinear text, you will see how deep within fantasy these people live. He may tell you that it is the modernising of religion, but unless their god or jesus has actually sent them down these translations, just like the bible, it is just the words of ordinary very superstitious people.

Sometimes, you almost admire their tenacity, but then being in merry go round mode, going round and round using the same old lines, is proof enough of where their minds are stuck.

I always liked the following argument:

1. God is a marvellous thing that functions like an immensely complicated wind-up watch.
2. The existence of an immensely complicated wind-up watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.
3. Logically, therefore, God must have been created by some sort of maker of immensely complicated wind-up watches.

Given that the only maker of immensely complicated wind-up watches that I can think of is homo sapiens, I must conclude that God was very probably created by homo sapiens.

The alchemist,
Your spirit is who you are, your core personality. It is not your body, it is the unseen impact you have made; how you have impacted this planet, with your ideas, your communications, your love or hate etc.

God is not a being: God is the spiritual qualities of character, and he exists independent of the physical, but has chosen to be revealed through the physical lives of those that bless mankind and this planet with His graces.

That's all fine and good, Philo - but then why are you so infernally dogmatic about he/she/it and why do you spend so much time denigrating other people's versions of he/she/it?

I respect everyone's right to hold views on any matter - even if they are wrong in my opinion. But the answer to this science vs theology debate is simple.

Science argues it has good evidence to suspect everything started with the Big Bang, but they're not certain. It seems like a plausible argument. But what existed before the Big Bang? Where did everything come from before that and in what state was it in? They don't know, but they have faith in their science that they'll find out one day.

Theologians argue that in the beginning God created everything, maybe even the Big Bang itself, whatever, but where did God come from? How could God have created Him/Her/It-self from nothing in the beginning? They don't know, but they have faith in their religion that they'll find out one day.

See the pattern emerging here?

Both have faith in their repective beliefs. Neither one has the answers, proof or evidence and neither one will probably ever know. So in the meantime, both continue to have FAITH in what they believe is correct and neither one can argue that the other one's FAITH is wrong.

Perpetual dilemma - what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Frankly, I can't understand why there's been so much written about this subject here. It's just a matter of choosing one's favourite faith and being tolerant of the other fellow's. Surely each has a right to do that.

Alchemist.... its one thing to rattle off a few 'ancient' document names, its another to actually show their real connection to the matter of Christian origins. You might score a point or 2 with Kenny :) but not with the informed.
Kenny, before you jump down my throat for that tease, I take your point about Genesis, I was referring more to the scenario of Genesis 1:1 Not the individual creation of various life forms, but science being what it is, you never know.... it might revise itself.

Nag Hammadi texts....

tells us about Gnosticism, already known and dealt with by the early Church. This just fills in some blanks about what they used and why.

Nadan Fragrment....

Tells us an interesting story about a man who adopted his nephew... err.. your point ?

Dead Sea Scrolls

support the orthodox position... what are u on about ? A wonderful copy of Isaiah among them.

9 letters left out ?...

err.. maybe because the eye witnesses who were still alive during the compilation of the New Testament were able to see them for what they were.. not worthy of being 'scripture'.

Which Text/Bible... all translations of translations etc...

You have a point. There are a few textual issues which are raised, minor but real. None of those issues take away from the central core of Christs person and work or the teaching of Paul etc. The Bible Old and New testaments did not 'drop out of the sky' and we don't claim it did. We do however,accept and believe that the Holy Spirit guarded the truth God wished to communicate to us. 1 Corinthians 15 being a classic example. See FF BRUCE New Testament Documents.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

It certainly had an impact.. its 'which' year ? from 'what' event ?

blessings all

Maximus, you skew the argument a little there. We all know that the universe exists: that does not involve faith.

Science and religion both put forward theories regarding the origin of this universe, but the Christian theory simply pushes the problem one step further away without even trying to answer it. Instead of an unexplained universe, we end up with a universe created by an unexplained God.

If you argue that God is more complex than the universe, then you have made the problem worse: instead of a universe that sprang into existence for no obvious reason, you have an even more complex God that sprang into existence for no obvious reason. Nice story, but hardly an explanation.

If, on the other hand, you argue that God is less complex than the universe, you have to explain how the less complex was able to create the more complex, and that doesn’t even sound like a good story.

I suppose there is a third option, in which God is exactly as complex as the universe, in which case it would be simpler to say that God IS the universe and avoid the terminological problem. We could then stop using the word "god" altogether, except in the sense that we use terms like "elf", "goblin" and "Harry Potter".

if god is the universe then its interseting to consider wether it can contravine its own laws. for example can god travel faster than the speed of light? if not then considering that last time anyone saw him it was about 2000 yrs ago,..... 2000yrs at 299 792 458 m / s..
that means god is 18908509910976000 km away, and will take longer to return, considering its going to take a while for him to slow down enough to turn around.

38,000 different sect's in Christendom and climbing with many having very different views then you BD, some don't event believe in the divinity of Jesus.
As for What was before the "Big Bang" well nothing there was nothing before the "Big Bang" both time and space from into being at the "big Bang" so it is pointless to talk about a time before the "big Bang" or a cause for it. One of the most important implications of quantum physics is that at the level of the fundamental building blocks of matter the ideas of cause proceeding effect don’t apply. At the quantum level many events seem to be truly spontaneous.

Talking about what happened before the Big Bang is a bit like talking about building a house 8 km south of the South Pole. It is dimensionally incoherent.

The infuriating thing for secular humanists like me, is that when we argue our point of view, it is seen as just that; an opinion.
When the religious argue theirs, they invoke supernatural authority and their opinion gets promoted to a moral value. For example, secular public schools are called "value neutral" when of course they are the opposite, particularly considering the inclusivity and acceptance they practice, and religious private schools are deemed to be bastions of moral values, on sometimes very little evidence, other than the words they preach.
This argument will never end, but I yearn for the day when all opinions on the subject will be considered equal. Then we might have a real conversation.

enaj,
When the time comes that we all believe the same thing then this forum for ideas becomes redundant. We will then all believe the teacher and we will not have any original personal ideas or challenge and taught position. Sounds like a totalitarian society to me. It will be OK for you if all believe the same as you, same for me.

I suggest you look at those that promote a totalitarian doctrine, perhaps there is one utopian State in existence already. On the other hand you might not want to join it because they teach things you do not agree with. The purpose and end of man is not to know everything, but to live lives that have fulfilled emotions and spiritual lives that bless our family, friends and society.

Philo, check your dictionary. Equal does not mean the same. Equal means of equal value. You can continue to believe whatever you like in my view. I don't want to convert you (I believe that's more prevalent on your side of the fence) I just want you to listen to my views with equal respect.
Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of believing one set of beliefs is superior to and more important than another. Democracy requires equality, you know, like equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Doesn't mean the same opportunity, just one of equal value.

Dear Enaj

I really don't think its about 'superior/inferior' in the sense you mean.

As Christians, we are committed to Christ, He calls us to proclaim the gospel of salvation. To do so is not to set ourselves above anyone, it is to simply be obedient to the divine call as humbly as possible.
Yes, we seek 'conversion' a turning around of lives and hearts, a renewing of minds a re-directing of wills toward God, rather than self.

On the relative merits of the ideas.... well, you have to assess that yourself, our fundamental problem with secular humanism is that it was born out of an enlightenment/reformation/renaissance all of which occurred in a Christian cultural setting/framework. i.e. there there were given values. It seems to the observer, that humanism just took the 'nice' values of Christianity and then proceeded to reject the Author. Most humanist web sites will say as much, and especially existential ones. In fact they admit that the dilemna of "What is right, what is wrong' is the very first philosophical challenge they face.

As I've said numerous times, this leads to 5 people (even humanists) having 5 different ideas about what is right/wrong. They have no anchor, rudder, lighthouse.

I would be the last to suggest we commit to Christ 'just' so we can have a foundation for values, but it is a wonderful by product of salvation in Christ.

Cheers

enaj,
To quote you, "This argument will never end, but I yearn for the day when all opinions on the subject will be considered equal. Then we might have a real conversation."

Thanks for thinking my opinions could be equal in value to yours. I thought you were passionately defending your opinions because you actually believed in them. That your view of the world had more value than mine.

So my views have equal status in your mind; I am flattered! I will be careful not to dissagree with you in the future since my opinions have equal value in your mind. I love you!
[Just an opinion]

boaz, i could name 5 christians on this site who have different ideas of right and wrong, depending on the issue.

I always enjoy your replies BD, they are so flawed. The Nadan fragments numbered 119, not one. The Nag hammadi are letters between the disciples and others discussing the disciples, what you have read is what the catholic and jewish churches released as being the translations. Most of the dead sea scrolls have never been released to the public and are held by the Russina orthodox church. You certainly have no idea of true religious history, just what you have learnt from recent translations designed to give acceptable outcomes for religion, a common ploy.

“In fact they admit that the dilemma of "What is right, what is wrong' is the very first philosophical challenge they face.” You sure do live in fantasy, how can you say that, when all living things have a differentiation between right and wrong, if not then nothing would exist, for they would destroy each other upon sight. Reason, is a part of existence, it is the religious that cannot reason, or discern between right and wrong, they are most war like beings on the planet.

“As I've said numerous times, this leads to 5 people (even humanists) having 5 different ideas about what is right/wrong. They have no anchor, rudder, lighthouse.” This surely is one of the most ludicrous statements you have ever made. If this were so, then it would mean that meaningful conversations would never occur between those that didn't believe. The actual facts are, those that are not restricted by mythical illusion and fear, are able to freely interact, rather than be directed.

To state that all our values come from religion is also a figment of your imagination, your religion has only been around 2000. If what you say about those that don't believe is true, then there would be no society, no religion, no co-ordination and no interaction, as everyone would disagree.

Therefore your god, your understanding and your beleifs wouldn't exist. Could that be why you are all so blank and have no free choice, other than to repeat over and over, fantasy

"Its not easy being" and others.

Point taken, let me attempt to clarify/re-express myself on the issue of 'right and wrong'

I seriously doubt that any Christian would disagree on the 'rightness' of the 10 commandments. Nor with the concept of "Love God first" "love your neighbour as urself" These 2 commands sum up the whole law, its not rocket science :)

From these 2 all other ideas of right and wrong must be subject.

Yes, of course there will be diversity, some will speak from what they think is a 'Christian' perspective, but it may turn out to be nothing more than a 'cultural orientation' rather than a committment to Christ through repentance and faith. If I may, that is the criteria of determining if someone is 'Christian', and is the gospel Jesus proclaimed. Repentance is based on an understanding of 'right and wrong..... as expressed in the commandments.

Alchemist,

not only are you the "all knowing" who has access to the dead sea scrolls which up to this moment you inform us are hidden...etc etc.. :) but also u know what "I" have been reading.

So, you, are the one person on earth outside the Russian Orthodox Church (as you claim) who knows what is 'in' these scrolls.......My 'flawed argument' meter is whacking on the full scale deflection stopper. (I do recall reading something on that a while back, I'm a bit skeptical about your claims)

I'll get back to you on the Nadan fragments, as I continue to inform my rather lead impeded brain.

Blessings all

Dear Philo,
Thanks, the more people who love me, the better, I guess.
Of course your views have equal status with mine. I am always prepared to accept I may be wrong, but you have to persuade me first.
I see the world through my own very limited paradigm. Like you, I am a product of my upbringing, culture, education, experience and time. Most of what I think works from my point of view, but time will move on and, one day, I am sure, my beliefs and yours, indeed everyone's on this website, will look quaint and silly in the light of future knowledge and growth.
I like the idea that what I think is just what i think, I like the idea that life is an adventure of discovery of new ways of thinking and being. I'm glad I don't have a view that someone called God decreed the truth and I can stop looking for it, but, that's just me. I'll put my views forcefully, but respectfully I hope, and expect you to do the same. I guess that's what equality means to me, equal respect.
By the way, I don't expect to ever find the truth and that doesn't worry me either.

David, I can't agree with you on this one:

"If I may, that [a commitment to Christ through repentance and faith] is the criterion of determining if someone is 'Christian'."

There can never be "the" criterion, but only "your" criterion. Other people will have different ways of defining whether they (or others) are Christians, and they are not subject to your views.

Since you seem to feel that you have the right to define other people's experience of Christianity, do you also see it as your prerogative to define who is a "true" Muslim?

Bless you Ian :)
mate.. your not disagreeing with 'me'....your disagreeing with the foundation.. Scripture.
But if one does not accept Scripture as a foundation for 'what is Christian' then anything goes, agreed. But please keep in mind, we only 'know' of the word/concept "Christian" because of those documents, (+ church history of course).

I'll concede that if one is of the Catholic tradition, then the view of the Holy Spirit continually at work "in" the Church on matters of doctrine, and the supposed infallability of the Pope, might persuade a person to change the definition of 'Christian' though I think that would be like a ship which had cut off its anchor chain in a stormy sea.
I have a simple approach to this, "If the church manifestly errs from its own foundation in defining 'Christian' then I will go with the foundation rather than 'the' Church"

"repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand" (many references)
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no-one comes to the Father but by me" John 14.6

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" John

on this basis, and subsequent apostolic preaching (of the same kind)
"The disciples were first called 'christians' at Antioch" Acts 11.26

Ian I don't think its unreasonable or unsound to 'define' a 'Christian' in these terms. I think you can define 'church experience' or 'religious interest' in however terms you like, but 'Christian'... I feel does have a clear form.

As for 'true Muslim' well, I would refer to the '5 pillars' of Islam, again which seems reasonable. Taking this a step further, 'as practiced by Mohamed' is a goal the ICV had on its web site (until they were reminded of some of his questionable war-like/cruel actions by some of us, and they removed this very recently(most likely because of the Anti Terror laws)

Anyway, thanx for challenging me on this issue, vigorous interaction is always helpful.
Take care

Again, David, you (and many others) are defining Christianity as being based on your reading of Scripture, but there are other possible definitions, as there are many other ways of reading those works. You simply do not have the right to define other people's experience for them.

You say:
"I don't think it's unreasonable or unsound to 'define' a 'Christian' in these terms."

I didn't say it was unreasonable, just that it isn't and can never be the only way. No one is in any position to impose their definition on anyone else.

It is like one person saying to another "ah, but you are not a REAL Collingwood supporter, because REAL Collingwood supporters do this, that or the other". It just isn't a plausible way to behave, no matter what one book or another might have to say about it.

(By the way, I have read the Bible, and quoting little snippets of it to me is unlikely to change my views on anything.)

Bd, Those documents are only hidden from those that are enslaved to ignorance. They have been seen and recorded by many. For those that really seek the truth of religion, it can be found, but not by those that refuse to see.

I can understand if you come from a USA invented church, they have completely distorted and manipulated any basis of truth or sensibility within modern christianity. In the past, many ordained were always willing to discuss truthfully the origins and history. My experiences within the high church and my post phd studies, for some reason opened some doors. I was not alone and during those times, I met many both here and overseas that had access to and were researching church documents.

Try the Russian St. Daniel Monastery, or Church of St. George, Moscow. There are records, if not the documents available if requested in the right way. I don't think it has changed since I was last there. It is also not unusual for religions to suppress or destroy documents to conceal truth. Luckily many orthodox churches, preserved most documents that they had. During the 1917 when the Bolsheviks were coming to power, the Holy Council issued an order that all holy works be moved and stored, after the so called 'Khrushchev's thaw" and the imminent collapse of communism many of these document were restored to their proper places.

Regarding nadan, ref:- Ahiqar, you may discover how judism attempted to alter and conceal these documents and the facts as to their number. However you would have to go to Israel to view any, and that is by invitation only, which must come from your church or research body.

Bd you are ill equipped to debate religion, your base is to narrow and severely limited in openness. Those that constantly revert to scripture, show their lack of knowledge. Religion is historical and if not viewed in that way, becomes an illusionary fantasy for those of little, but repetitive mind.

Early in this discussion both Sells and Teatree recommended that I should read some proper theology. My Macquarie defines theology as “the science which treats of God, His attributes, and His relation to the universe”.

I requested guidance as to where I could find this proper theology. I would also like suggestions as to how I can distinguish it from the other sort.

So far there has been no reply. I have tried McGrath and Thomas Aquinas and, indeed, Sells himself. I have found them all adept at words but sadly lacking in what I conceive as science.

Scientific theology? It's like scientific alchemy and scientific spoon-bending. Or perhaps a glorified kind of role-playing game, where people sit around and say "let's invent a parallel universe that was created by some sort of higher being, then sit around on rainy saturday afternoons and play in it."

I think philology, history and literary criticism are better places to start for anyone who wants to understand gods and the people who make them.

It is apparent the unintelligent have no understanding of science or theology and have begun to mock God as they have no logical argument and understanding of a complex universe. Their teasing is 5th class boys standard. Their attempt at infantile shame only reveals their capacity of reasoning. Like all science masters tired of infantile behaviour I suggest they should graduate!

In "The Twilight of Atheism", Alister Mc Grath argues that science cannot know things as surely as Richard Dawkins claims it can. Science, he argues, contains a large measure of faith, just as religion does. The point may be granted, but only if we carefully distinguish between the kind of “faith” that operates in science and the kind of “faith’ that operates in religion.

Faith, despite its positive sense in religion, is actually a negative concept, as it functions in the reality of uncertainty. It occupies the gap between what is and what we know for certain of what is. The two kinds of faith operative in science and religion respectively differ from one another in important respects. The differences are brought about by the differing epistemologies (theories by means of which we find out things and establish facts) of science and religion.

Science claims a measure of certainty which it arrives at through the application of an epistemology of research and experiment. Religion likewise claims a measure of certainty, but certainty which it arrives at, not so much through the application of an epistemology of research and experiment, but rather of one of argumentation (a-la-Aquinas), philosophizing, mythologizing and… who knows what?

And so, to merely point out that science is often uncertain, or has at times had things wrong, is not to prove that propositions of science are as uncertain as that of religion. Nor is it to prove that science and religion are uncertain in the same way. The choice of whom to believe, science or religion, where the two disagree on a particular matter, must be made not on the basis of who has less or more certainty or doubt with regard to that matter, but on the basis of how each has arrived at that certainty or doubt.

When it comes to understanding the world as it really is, then, evaluated on the basis of their respective epistemologies, the “faith” or even the worst ignorance of science is still firmer ground than the best “science” of religion.

Gulielmus

Thank you for your erudite clarification of the 'faith' of science and the 'faith' of religion.

I have always found science to be accessable, whereas religion varies according to whomever is making the interpretation. Also I find the continual attempts to be coerced into accepting a religious faith very suspicious. Whereas science - you can take it or leave it. It doesn't come knocking on your door handing out leaflets. Science doesn't tell you how to dress or how to breed. Religion demands more than simple faith; it would appear to demand complete and utter gullibility.

For myself, science can be heard, felt, touched, measured, tasted etc There are causes and effects. It can evolve as new discoveries are made. Science is progressive. Science makes room for mistakes.

I have been posting to this forum for quite a long time now, I can only say that the extreme religious posters have not achieved changing my opinion on religion at all. In fact, given the emotional abuse I have received by many religious posters - I have become less tolerant of them. This is unfortunate because I believe in live and let live.

Regards

Scout,

I agree that science is more “accessible, whereas religion varies according to who happens to be making the interpretation”, as you put it, if you mean by this that science brings us more securely within the bounds of what is whereas religion generally takes people wherever they wish to go. To put it differently - in science only the possible is possible, whereas in religion anything is possible. In science, an apple always falls down from the tree, in religion you can make it fall however you want.

Sorry to hear about the abuse. Abuse is always rudeness, and rudeness, someone said, is the weak man’s imitation of strength. I don’t mean to preach, but hang on to that "live and let live thing" despite the abuse. Good to hear from you.

Kind regards

Gulielmus

Gulielmus,

I like that "rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength".

I understand what you mean by "anything is possible in religion", however, I find that to be the case in science as well because the more we learn the more we find we have to learn. For example, just lying back on a starry night and considering the universe, starting with our solar system, the fragment of the arm of the galaxy in which our solar system resides, the myriad other galaxies, the possibility of multiple universes, the fact that I am actually looking into the past when star gazing..... I could just rabbit on.

When I was a child I wanted to be an astronaut and due to the vagaries of life missed my calling as a scientist, but I have never lost the wonder of it all. The infinite space for possibilities.

Kind regards