crabsy, you're dead wrong. whatever "the tyranny of empiricism" means, and however many people it applies to (i suggest none), jon j nailed it. the problem is that sellick makes blunt, vague, totally unsupported claims, and confuses this with argument. "modernity cripples the imagination". that's not an argument, it's simply a moronic slur.

why is it you god people have to trivialise us not not-god people as only invested in facts? why do you have to pretend we can't have emotions and dreams and a soul-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it?

you never ever argue why we can't love, why we can't bask in the glory of the universe, why we can't feel and experience and imagine perfectly well, just without the baggage of religious junk, without the ludicrous suggestion that christ was anything more than a pretty cool dude.

you guys never argue this because you can't argue it. it's not true. you don't have a monopoly on humane feeling, and we're not shallow fact-automatons. you're disgusting to suggest otherwise.

Sellick wrote: "To my delight he deals with fundamental changes that were brought about by Anthony Collins in England in the 1720s, right in the middle of my research interests."

I would appreciate it if Sellick would acknowledge his abysmal ignorance of the history of biblical criticism. I pointed it out in my previous post. His 'research interests' apparently have not required him to be informed of what has been done in the field.

Bushbasher and anyone else,

I really sorry if my words seemed to “trivialise” you or anyone else. That was certainly not my intention: I do my best to ascribe equal worth to all humans because they deserve that.

What I am trying to say is that you and everyone else really do have “emotions and dreams and a soul-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it”. But you actually deny this when you demand public evidence (facts) in support of opinions about soul-life, spiritual experience, perceptions of God and so on. These events are private to the individual, and so when presenting an argument about them one must rely on the audience or reader using some imagination to understand it. Facts, empirical data, are irrelevant here. Making empiricism dominate everything stunts inner development. I think this is Peter Sellick’s point.

When a number of people in an audience discuss the emotional or aesthetic impact a piece of music has made on them, facts are at best peripheral to any argument. Similarly debate over the value of a work of literary fiction cannot be based simply on fact; much of the difference in opinion needs to be examined using imagination in one way or another.

This was a large part of the problem that erupted in the “two cultures” (arts and science) debate in the ‘60s and it didn’t stop when C.P Snow and F.R. Leavis left the world. The difference is that now theology (rather than arts) is being characterised as necessarily opposed to science when actually there is no need for the two to clash. Each discipline has its own field and its own cognitive tools and if this is accepted they can co-exist with no detriment to humanity.

Once again, I did not want to trivialise you or anyone else. I apologise if that was the effect of my post.

Of course the irony in all of this is the notion of evidence and facts of themselves being a truth!

In science, during ancient Persian times and amongst the religious skeptics there was one (the name escapes me) who said that the sun was a rock that spun so fast, it caught fire. Evidence was soon forth coming, as a piece of the sun was seen by many to have been thrown off and hurtling in space, past the earth.

Meanwhile in ancient Greece, Democritus having thought most deeply said that everything was made of smaller constituents he termed atomos; and dared to claim this truth without evidence!

Truth does not need evidence and facts to make it so. Opinion often abuses evidence and fact so it may parody as truth.

Whilst I acknowledge the intent of the opening post to deflect unproductive criticism metered against god belief, my opinion on the matter though, is that it is god belief that suffocates imagination and not secularism.

As a secularist, I could not live in a god belief society who would dictate what my thoughts ought and ought not to be based on that god belief. Indeed I would not live in such a society as an inquisition of some kind would smite me, then murder me for daring to imagine another way of being.

Do not think that I reference only the Catholics in making this claim. Ancient Greeks were known to kill those who showed impiety towards the Olympians. God belief, when a part of the governing of a society is dangerous to those with imagination

Pelican

you write

'runner
Some of those corrupt scientists you talk about actually deny anthropogenic climate change. Who are you to decide who are the corrupt scientists? I have many religous friends who I don't agree with in terms of their views on creation but I would not stoop to say they are corrupt just because their world view does not agree with mine. Sometimes people are just wrong, and there may be no hidden agenda.' Just google climategate and you will get the names you are looking for. Flannery and Gore should be utterly ashamed of themselves for being the scaremongers they have on such fraudulent 'science'. Not surprising as many evolutionist have done the same for decades.

I could not agree more Pelican but one would have to be deliberately naive or deceived not to see the deceit, lies and cover ups by many 'climate experts'. The lies , fraud and deceit have been covered up and hidden by our beloved national broadcasters who are now reluctantly trickling out small bits of a massive cover up. Our current Government who has taken the advice of these fraudsters were willing to sell out the Australian tax payer in order to look good to the UN. Just as being a Catholic Priest in Ireland must be embarrassing today so must it be to be a climate change priest who have committed scientific adultery.

Criticism of religion is just, What facts are religion based on, and which religion.
If you want to believe in something based on fairytale so be it.
Do not peddle your wares on people who choose to live in the real world.