relda, this is where and how you are playing dumb.

*) you are pretending that there is no substance to criticisms of sellick.

*) you are pretending the lack of engagement is due to sellick's critics, ignoring the bleeding obvious, that sellick NEVER engages with any but the most accommodating "criticism".

*) you ignore ludicrously false generalized claims such as:

>> Christians have a stake in atheism
>> in that they do not believe in the existence of an intelligent supernatural being.

. you claim that sellick's posts doesn't get the respect they deserve. but you, nor sellick, NEVER demonstrate any content worthy of respect.

the fact of the matter is that you and sellick simply PRESUME this respect is warranted. you are so goddam sure of yourself, so pleased with your proud christian intellectual tradition, you won't actually ever lower yourself to address any criticism, to actually make a coherent argument.

well, if others don't buy it, if others don't apriori give religious belief any more credence than ghosts or astrology, then tough titty. it's not your job to defend christianity, but it's not our job to give your "faith" automatic respect. earn it or shut up. but, in either case, stop bitching.

>> For some reason, and again, you appear to seriously strike a nerve

relda, get your hand off it. you're not that dumb. sellick lies about "chrisitian belief", and "sellick belief" is an incomprehensible mish-mosh. people repeatedly ask WHAT he believes, and why, and he NEVER answers. still, you unfailingly defend him with your snide potshots.

your smug, more-intellecutal-than-thou posts are truly obnoxious.

Squeers, Jon J, Stevenlmeyer, and others:

Some people do seem to want to escape from “the world” by uniting themselves with a “transcendent God”. Throughout history this has been a tendency for many people in some phases of their lives, and for some people in most or all of their lives. But it is never a healthy direction for an individual or humanity.

Most – of today’s Christians do not choose that option. Nor, in my experience, do most believe in God as a being. In this respect they could be described as “non-theists” while also believing in God. And, from reading and talking to Christians, I would say this position did not develop in just the last few years; many Christians of the past believed in the same way.

Of course, I am here considering the theology of adults. To children the image of God as a person – even if invisible and intangible – is quite natural. Unfortunately most of the strident enemies of spiritual notions and religious practice present this as the way all Christian adults, today and in the past, perceive God.

God is both transcendental and immanent. In other words, God dwells not only beyond the material world but also in the material world. God can be found both within ourselves and outside of ourselves. This sort of theology, sometimes called panentheism, is driving a groundswell among people across the globe.

One problem in communicating the perceptions of non-theistic Christians is that language is in itself woefully inadequate for this task. Used in the poetic and mythic mode it can do much better, but still not enough. That is why traditional churches give so much attention to liturgy: it combines language with music, visual art, drama, taste and even – increasingly today – dance, thus providing channels for many types of intelligence to experience the presence of God and the inclination of God.

Following that experience, however, we need to reflect on it, using our human powers of rational thought, in order to decide how to apply our perceptions most fruitfully in the world.

crabsy, thanks for the honest attempt.

>> Some people do seem to want to escape from “the world” by uniting themselves with a “transcendent God” ...
>> Most – of today’s Christians do not choose that option.

i'm sorry but i simply do not believe this. if you have any evidence to support this contention, i'd love to see it.

>> To children the image of God as a person – even if invisible and intangible – is quite natural.

no, it is only "natural" if someone is feeding them nonsense. and it is poisonous.

>> God is both transcendental and immanent ...

i'm sorry. i can't say what you write here is meaningless, but it is meaningless to me.

and please excuse my rationalist, literalist approach, but where does jesus fit in? where do biblical teachings fit in, miracles and all, moral axioms and all? where does mary's virginity fit in? all evidence is that your "god is everything" approach" is overwhelmingly in the minority.

i doubt i would find anything silly or offensive in your "religious" view. in fact, it sounds very similar to that of christians friends whose beliefs i very much respect. however, i very much doubt that it warrants sellick's arrogant dismissal of others' beliefs, nor his arrogant
ownership of true "christian" belief.

>> One problem in communicating the perceptions of non-theistic Christians
>> is that language is in itself woefully inadequate for this task.

maybe so, but it is sellick who chooses to write. the fact that his task may be difficult doesn't negate the fact that he fails dismally. and, he fails while not unoften being arrogant and insulting to those who do not share his unclarified, unjustified waffling.

I agree with bushbasher. It is high time you were called out on your condescending and patronizing posts, relda.

>>From Galileo to Michael Polanyi there are numerous and brilliant scientists professing a faith - there is a noted consistency of ‘tacit knowing’ (i.e. 'knowing' without data).<<

The first half is accepted. Scientists have been "professing a faith" throughout history. It may have been largely driven by social convention, but it was there nonetheless.

But you then claim amongst these scientists a "noted consistency of 'tacit knowing'".

Show us just one example of how these scientists developed and supported any of their theories, through "tacit knowing".

You will find, that whatever their particular religious inclinations, they based all their findings on fact.

Your marginalia on Schroedinger's Cat are particularly superficial, and - one suspects - intended to deliberately mislead.

>>Schroedinger denies Materialism (i.e. the theory that matter is the only reality)... “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms.”.<<

The story of, and conclusions from, Schroedinger's cat thought experiment have absolutely no bearing upon Materialism. To pretend otherwise is pure invention.

Schroedinger was a theoretical physicist, and was therefore stating a "fact", as far as existing knowledge was concerned. As he himself pointed out in "What is Life"...

"...the obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for"

Far from "denying Materialism", Schroedinger-the-physicist is merely pointing out that we have thus far insufficient evidence - BUT that the required evidence is bound to appear.

Thanks to the scientists, of course.

Schroedinger was also fascinated by the Hindu concept of Brahman. How do you reconcile this with your pseudo-philosophical interpretation of the cat story?

>>The ‘state of play’ in this discussion can only be described as “dumb” where little serious effort is made for intellectual engagement.<<

Your contributions, are mere intellectual tap-dancing, relda. In lieu of intellectual engagement, you use words to disguise and avoid, rather than illuminate and confront.

A habit particularly prevalent amongst those caught in the straitjacket of their acquired belief systems.

Bushbasher et al. You seem quite angry. Your responses appear to be more anti-Sellick than anti-religion. Rest assured Sells is acting out a fine tradition that runs through cultures that are underpinned by Judeo-Christian revelation - that of prophecy. He targets Christians and rationalists alike in his speaking out against the rationalising and demystifying of the Godhead.

Prophets are not particularly genteel people. They speak a message that is true to them in the context of their own faith relationship and understanding of things as they are. And it takes courage.

A Post secular society!

We live in era in which society is described by Jurgen Habermas, philosopher and Neo-Marxist social critic, as post-secular. An epochal time at which the two great contributions to human affairs from the West, Christian faith and secular rationalism, are of great necessity for human flourishing. Each can be further enriched through knowing its limitations and each informing the other.

Habermas states " The public awareness of a post-secular society also reflects a normative insight that has consequences for the political dealings of unbelieving citizens with believing citizens. In the postsecular society, there is an increasing consensus that certain phases of the "modernisation of the public consciousness" involve the assimilation and the reflexive transformation of both religious and secular mentalities. If both sides agree to understand the secularization of society as a complementary learning process, then they will also have cognitive reasons to take seriously each other's contributions to controversial subjects in public debate" The Dialectics of Secularization - On Reason and and Religion in a dialogue with Joseph Ratzinger ( now Pope Benedict XVI)

We see here Habermas in a prophetic stance. Sells speaks out against diluted expression of faith : Habermas speaks out against a rigid barren exclusive rationalism.

Squeers,
I agree with your observations – pure transcendentalism largely turns out to be a ‘con’, tricking us from a true balance of reality.

bushbasher,
On your first and also your second point, where have I given the pretence there can be no criticism of Sells – it seems you ignore what I’ve written? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#155152)

I agree with the general thrust of Sells last article, he, I believe is quite accurate when he says, “Religion is seen as such an easy target that no effort at all is required to pull it down” - as evidenced by many on this forum.

In his book Nature and the Greeks Schroedinger states:
“Whence came I, whither go I? Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us, of why and how an old song can move us to tears.” Sells has said something similar – do you lump he and Schroedinger into the same camp?

Pericles,
Good tap-dancing is an art form and, as with the use of the intellect, it requires a certain discipline and dexterity – I’ve no problem with that. That you might judge me poorly at either, I find, is not at issue.

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’.

The ‘cat story’ is a metaphysical exercise and here’s the conncection:
“Now I shall not keep free of metaphysics, nor even of mysticism; they play a role in all that follows….. we are all actually members or aspects of a single Being, which we may in western terminology call God, while in the Upanishads it is called Brahman.” (Schroedinger, as cited in Moore 1990).

Schroedinger’s best loved quotation from the Vedas is this:
“Who sees the Lord dwelling alike in all beings
Perishing not as they perish
He sees indeed. For, when he sees the Lord
Dwelling in everything, he harms not self by self.
This is the highest way.”
I kind of like it too.