bushbasher,
Are you sure you are not confusing infinity (clarified by Cantor), with infinitesimals (strictly speaking, a vague term)? Of course, people were contemplating the nature of infinity for ages - after all, theologians also liked the word - before Cantor. Newton was a genius no doubt, but his calculus was a great intuition, hardly a precision: we used to joke that Newton would not pass our first year exams on calculus exactly because of the vagueness of the terms he used. Today infinity is an important and exact concept in mainstream mathematics, whereas infinitesimals are used only intuitively (except in non-standard analysis). Of course, this is irrelevant to this thread.

>>of course, if i ask for *any* evidence ... i do so only to confirm my choice of world-view<<
And I can just repeat: you cannot have it confirmed this way exactly because that it is your FUNDAMENTAL choice thus defining your personal identity. Whatever “evidence” for the choice of another world-view presuppositions somebody else could offer, it would also involve his/her identity, hence not as easily transferable as factual or symbolic knowledge.

George is absolutely correct in his writings about infinity, infinitessimals, etc. Newton was an intuitive genius who provided a workable mathematics for treating moving bodies. Cantor provided a rigorous treatment for building up a logical system to describe the implicit notion of infinity in the calculus.

The nature of premises is that a logical system can be built upon them. The premises themselves are unprovable. The mathematical systems of Euclidean Geometry, spherical geometry and hyperbolic geometry are examples of systems logical in themselves but based on different and contradictory forms of the parallel postulate. Spherical geometry is useful in navigation as it describes straight lines on a sphere where all straight lines intersect. Hyperbolic geometry is useful in describing celestial motion as it fits relativistic physics. Euclidean geometry is useful in describing objects moving according to the three laws of Newtonian motion.

Analogously in religion. George's Catholic world-view determines the premises he accepts. I do not accept those premises since I have a different world-view. I am an atheist. George's premises and mine are contradictory as are the premises on which Euclidean, spherical and hyperbolic geometry are based. Our premises are contradictory but also unprovable. However, both George and myself are logical. We both accept logical systems that are based on contradictory premises.

Ultimately the beef on which our system is based are our premises that are unprovable. Spindoc's question "Can we please have an example of religious knowledge, or if you prefer it, “knowing”?" is an epistemological question. Epistemology differentiates justifiable belief from opinion. I am satisfied that George's and my beliefs are justifiable if the system based on those beliefs is logical or non-contradictory even though our premises which are unprovable are themselves contradictory.

I respect George’s logical mind and recognise that our differences cannot be resolved because they are based on different worldviews that yield contradictory premises. All we can reasonably ask is that the system built on those premises is logical. The intuitive process that determines the premises is not subject to proof

George,

You asked me a direct question. and I did my best to provide a direct reply. Said reply had nothing whatsoever to do with a theist’s right to cherish a belief and choose not to use the tools of an objective discipline to test faith.

In fact, I posit a theist must be free to maintain a faith applying a separate standard or measure than to say, anthropology, especially where political power is not exercised of people. Here, Sells is free to “not” write headings such as, Creation Story, Virgin Birth on a piece of paper and compare religions, to see Christianity’s characteristics dissolve into the list of religions of a same/similar kind.

Moreover, I would not suggest there is dishonesty involved with Sells et al. However, defence mechanisms could be involved. Along these lines, I recall Linus saying to Lucy that he would not read a book, because, “ it might change the way I think” (Peanuts).

I agree with you that there are some pretty smart theists and atheists and some pretty silly theists and atheists. On both sides of the debate, some reach their worldview after serious study, while others just fall into belief or disbelief.

If an atheist critiques a theist for lack of objectivity in appraising religious a worldview, to avoid hypocrisy, the atheist, likewise, should be willing to apply object methods in appraising their worldview. Herein, perhaps, the position of skeptic is the best. One should be a skeptical believer or a skeptical atheist. Skeptics will tend to be objective, perhaps, more objective than Sells or Dawkins.

Being a skeptic myself, I willingly apply objectivity to theism and atheism, holding a dominant position tentatively, while both poles are tested and re-tested. (Atheistism is the strongest cconstruct, I maintain)

Further, I would be happy with someone producing an objective taxonomy of the classes of atheism, so similarities and dissimilarities, become evident. Not a problem.

"If theodicy is a new word for you you should be more careful with suggesting simple answers to the problem of evil." - George

Your comment had unfamilar and unnecessssary had bite. I said that I had no knowldege of the word used and was paying you a compliment; I did not say I was ignorant of discourses on "good" and "evil".

"The same as somebody for whom algebraic topology is a new concept should be more careful about his/her understanding of the classification of geometrical shapes." - George

A Clinical Psychologist would fluent with the classification Schemes of the DSM IV, whereas GP would not. It does not follow that a GP, does not have a valid concept of Depression or Mania.

Relatedly, as I thought you would have known, Einstein needed help with some of the mathematics underlying some of his work from his old Polytek University (History Channel Doumentary). Likewise, a colleague and I might need to go the US to work with an expert on advanced heiracharical linear models, given neither of is a HLM specialist.

In other threads, I have used the term "subsistance" from philosophy, in knowledge that the word is uncommon. Yet, by extrapolation, I would not presume that the reader had no concept of the related term, "existence".

[Subsistence is where something exists in a culture but does not exist in reality: e.g., Star Trek. Zeus?]

Oliver... so God and Devil fall into the 'subsistence' category then? Like Star Trek, The Lost Patrol, and all the other gods, fairies, hobgoblins and wailing banshees? Thanks, much clearer now.

Grim,
You say, “Ultimately, ethics and morality are about survival” – here you appear to be confusing ‘Darwinism’ with ‘social Darwinism’. The most popular catchwords of Darwinism i.e., “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest,” when applied to the life of man in society, suggests that nature will provide the best competitors in a competitive situation and win, and that this process will lead to continuing improvement (both socially and economically). Interestingly, this idea has been a strain in American conservative thought in order to boost its own ends - a belief whose chief conclusion was that the positive functions of the state should be kept to the barest minimum, one that was almost anarchical, and devoid of that centre of reverence and authority which the state provides in many conservative systems.

People who profess neither religion nor spirituality might be moral. But if you really dig up that morality, you will end up with two sources. It is either fear of others that society instills in its members in a sublime, elevated way by presenting them as mores and ethical conduct, or it is a leftover of a religious principle where the person no longer makes that connection. The universal morality, or ‘Golden Rule’, certainly runs across many religions and humanist ideologies - perhaps the ultimate common ground we all share. Spirituality, however, is a concept that we cannot easily grasp because it can be directed toward either God or the self. Most scholars agree that the sacred or the transcendent is an essential element in defining spirituality. This obviously is point of departure for the hardened secularist.

According to Wuthnow (1998), there are three dimensions of spirituality: “dwelling,” “seeking,” and “practice.” And he points out, “spiritual practices have a moral dimension, for they instruct people in how should behave toward themselves and with each other.” The Judeo-Christian narrative, as contained so intrinsically within our Western culture, expresses this and I think it a folly to merely ignore or be ignorant of.