Hi pelican,
I was not looking for an argument, only that I read your quote as MIXING experience (of the wonders of the natural world, interpreted religiously or not) with preferences (or even implying a preference) for this or that belief system (world-view). If Sellick did that, then I disagree with him as well.

Otherwise I agree with everything you wrote, and apologise if I misunderstood the sentence I quoted from your post. In particular, I agree that

>>those who do not hold a belief in the supernatural do not stand at the foot of a mountain or forest and think about mathematics or modelling<<

Actually nobody, whatever their world view, think about “mathematics and modelling” while standing at the foot of a mountain or forest (and marvelling): Those philosophically inclined - theists or atheists - usually do their thinking about the substance of the physical world, eventually what is the meaning of it and of our existence, at occasions more appropriate for philosophising that is as much as possible free of emotions (and prejudices).

crabsy, thank-you. i accept your apology, and i'll admit my post was strong. i know you're not one of the usual denigrators, that it was not your *intent* to be insulting. however, i think the *content* of your post was.

i'll try to make clear why sellick is so annoying, and why you shouldn't give him a free pass.

this is a typical sellick article, in that the first 80% is no problem at all (for me). given my background, i find sellick's histories confusing, but actually quite interesting. but then we have the last 20%, specifically the last four paragraphs. it is here, as usual, that sellick leaps to absurd, insulting conclusions.

1.

"modernity ... cripples the imagination". in what way? yes, if someone is a fact-nazi, demanding scientific-styled proof of everything, but who are these people? i know of absolutely no one who fills the description.

2.

so, sellick is attacking a straw man. EXCEPT sellick refers to such fact-nazism as "the reason that some commentators to these pages are indignant that theological statements are not so tested." that is, sellick's straw man is actually his critics, who dare to question the substance of his claims. he is insulting, and you condoned it.

3.

it is fine and good for sellick to promote imagination, the wonder of the universe or whatnot. BUT

a) it is not fine to claim that religious thinking has some monopoly on imagining. sellick claims to "argue again and again", but for what exactly? jon j was correct in that sellick argues for nothing. to argue imagination is good is trivial. and sellick doesn't *argue* for anything more, he simply *claims* it, ad nauseum.

b) it is not fine to play a cup and balls trick with literalism and metaphorism. if one wants god to be a sense of humanity and the universe, whatever, that's fine. but one cannot then claim anything divine for christianity, for jesus. when sellick becomes specific, promotes his brand above all others, we have every right to call him on it.

A [Belief] is an image 'from' the brain known as the imagination. A [Thought] is an image channeled 'to' the brain which has some forms of fact's. To build on factual information, you must first have an [idea] which is a thought based on facts.

To give an hypothesis on an imaginary man called God would only be giving a submission of theory to another's image of their imagination & would have no factual evidence at all because it is still just a figment of the imagination, which ever way you look at it.

Atheistno1,

You said that an idea is a thought based on facts.

Einstein had this to say on the subject:

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it".

Crabsy: '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.'

This is becoming an increasingly common assertion among believers who can no longer believe in a real external being called God: 'it's all subjective'.

The problem arises when this unprovable 'subjective' belief is used to support events in the real world such at attacks on abortion, discrimination against homosexuals, religious bans on birth control devices, women being kept out of management positions, tax breaks for religious organisations, etc, etc. If religion is 'all in the head' then there is no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise religious conferences, for instance, since there is no way the participants can ever discuss or share what is inherently a subjective experience. They should all just stay home and muse.

The religious term for this, by the way, is 'apophaticism'; and you can see some recent claims about it by Karen Armstrong strongly refuted by Troy Jollimore here:

http://tinyurl.com/yjs24eu

Bushbasher:
Thanks for taking the time to spell out your position. I'm thinking about it.

Jon J:
Thank you for the link to the article. I find it very stimulating.