boxgum,

1) your last sentence makes pretty clear the pointlessness of addressing anything else.

seriously, if you just want to insult, fine. if you want to try to discuss things, fine. if the discussion gets down to slinging slurs, that's also fine. (i have learned that relda's pontification, obfuscation, snide insults and selective memory deserve nothing better).

BUT, presuming you actually want to discuss things, why start with a general and totally unsupported slur? what do you think it serves, other than your vanity?

2) i am not one bit impressed by people quoting habermush, or pollyanna, or anyone else. if you have an argument, make it. but quoting questionable authority is pompous and adds no weight to your argument.

3) pericles, as usual, has given a fine reply. i haven't much to add, but:

a) i have written, numerous times, that i don't discount ideas simply because they are the ideas of religious people. religion reflects human needs and desires and fears: it would be astonishing if religion came up with no human truths. (just as it would be astonishing if religion didn't come up with gross obfuscation when facing human fears).

BUT, that does not make these truths religious truths. that would only be the case if you can argue that religious thought is in some way necessary, or at least hugely and particularly assisting, in coming to these truths. you have made no such argument.

b) your habermas quotation is impenetrable (and irrelevant, as i have said). but let's take the first sentence.

i) what is the compenetration of christianity and greek metaphysics? give me a concrete example of the merging of such ways of thinking.

ii) what is the intellectual form of theological dogmatics? give me a concrete example.

iii) what is the hellenization of christianity? give me a concrete example.

in brief, i'm willing to learn. but don't throw slabs of overstuffed text at me and simply expect me to be impressed, bowing in humble submission before the greater mind. not gonna happen.

Pericles,
“…that your suggestion, that the church was scientifically correct because of Galileo's "tacit knowledge" – Now, who’s reading what isn’t there? Read more carefully… and as you say ,”Don't read stuff that isn't there”.

“He was selected for the quote because of his Christian views, not because he had read the book with an open mind. ..” – Something more you’ve read into theTempleton press website (http://www.templetonpress.org/default.asp ) or just your own particular bias coming through?

In harking back to the relevant issue, Sells is quite legitimate with his article and you merely carry the baton with your “dreadfully simplistic bash at all things religious”.

And I had a ‘great day’... thanks.

>> Sells is quite legitimate with his article and you merely carry the baton
>> with your “dreadfully simplistic bash at all things religious”.

possibly, but you've done nothing to prove it. you apparently can't sustain an argument, respond to straight-forward questions, or defend a single one of your army of straw men.

Back to the tap-dancing I see, relda.

>>Pericles, “…that your suggestion, that the church was scientifically correct because of Galileo's "tacit knowledge" – Now, who’s reading what isn’t there? Read more carefully… and as you say ,”Don't read stuff that isn't there”.<<

Here's another careful read.

>>The ambiguity of history is illustrated by the fact that the church was scientifically correct in saying that Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space, i.e. he had ‘tacit knowledge’.<<

Reading oh-so-carefully, it still appears to me that you are:

1. Claiming that the church was "scientifically correct", and

2. That they reached this conclusion on the basis that Galileo was not offering proof, but merely "tacit knowledge"

How can this statement of yours be interpreted differently?

And then perhaps you can explain to me again how the church was "scientifically correct".

In simple, plain terms please. Without reference to Polanyi, or anyone else you have cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia.

>>“He was selected for the quote because of his Christian views"...Something more you’ve read into the Templeton press website<<

My mistake. It was merely blind coincidence that they found a fully paid-up member of Christians in Science to promote a book about the place of, errrr..., Christianity in Science.

>>you merely carry the baton with your “dreadfully simplistic bash at all things religious”.<<

The reason the arguments are simplistic, relda, is that they require no sophistication, deep thought or dedication to Wiki-philosophers whatsoever.

In trying to turn your and Sells' version of Christianity into some form of intellectual one-upmanship, you (both) succeed only to demonstrate the narrowness of your cerebral compass.

Pericles,
I’m claiming the medieval Church held the prevailing ‘scientific’ view of the time, i.e. the Catholic Church maintained that the Bible taught geocentricity - the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. A literal reading of the bible appeared to support this early scienftific viewpoint - therefore both the religious and scientific views on this coincided. Galileo was in the minority - he asserted that the Bible should be interpreted in light of man’s knowledge of the natural world, and that Scripture should not have authority in scientific controversies. He was at odds with not only church leaders but also his contemporaries in science and considered heretical in his views by most. His proof was ‘unseen’ by the majority.

The medieval (Catholic) Church was in agreement with the scientifically held consensus of its time i.e. in a manner of speaking, it was “scientifically correct” - even if not the reality, as we now know.

I would suggest, Pericles, the arguments do require some sophistication – even if the belief may appear quite simple. As with all disciplines and learning a certain dedication eventually leads to complexity, as has occurred within the spheres of science, religion, art and philosophy.

I would suggest you give Sells his due and consider your own ‘one-upmanship’ – I certainly don’t narrow Christianity down to one ‘cerebral compass’, or even mass for that matter.

Hi folks,
the following imagined imploration of Galileo's is apposite.

"My friends of the future, many hundreds of us were imprisoned or tortured to death by methods including burning at the stake so that your society could be enlightened—freed from the dangerous, cruel superstition and naïve absurdity of the dark ages. Socrates said: “there is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance”. As you approach the 400th anniversary of my death, it saddens me that in spite of having free access to the vast, ever-deepening well of priceless knowledge acquired in the intervening years, cryptic scriptural references are again fiercely competing with sound scientific theories within your learning institutions and among your elected leaders. Unfounded geocentricism and anthropocentrism is back—and propagating.

I implore you; do not let the suffering and deaths of the enlightenment martyrs be in vain. Before it is too late, let there be a renaissance of reason. In order to save your species, if not your planet, you must save the enlightenment."

The full text is here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=198777783543#/group.php?v=info&gid=198777783543

Ronnie's a friend of mine, is passionate about these issues and is trying to get his "FreeThinkersSQUARE" forum off the ground. I hope you'll have a look, make a comment, even join--and help in the cause of reason.