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)