Tristan:

"Personally - I do not believe that God "created the world - literally - in seven days". But I do think this is symbolic of something hidden - even though I concede it is something I do not understand."

But how are we supposed to even-handedly debate something that its proponents 'do not understand'? If you want to claim that God is impenetrably mysterious then that's fine: but it immediately disqualifies you from making any kind of contribution to a debate about religion. Unfortunately most believers are quite happy to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and then retreat back to the 'God is mysterious' position only when they are challenged.

"I believe that the idea of Christ as 'shepherd' has meaning in this context."

But how do you know that if 'God is mysterious'? How can you claim to know ANYTHING about your 'mysterious' God? And why are we obliged to give credit to your claims?

A figurine in the imagination. You want to be careful someone may put you in a straight jacket. People who say these things in public are taking more space than is allowed. If you want to believe in fantasies keep it to yourself. Truth is the first casualty of religion.

<" Wieland requests a public debate on the topic of which viewpoint, creation or evolution, is best represented by the empirical evidence.">

No atheistic evolutionist in his right mind would ever take on a debate of this nature (based on fossil records and true scientific discoveries) going by past debates of this sort. Rather, an atheist should challenge a theist (especially from the Judeo/Christian tradition) why would God allow so much suffering.

http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath#chapter_02
Christopher Hitches, by far the best atheist apologist, takes on Alister McGrath, a famous scientist (PhD) and a theologian (PhD) from the Anglican Church . Seems to be a tie 50/50)

The hypothesis of evolution remains just that, a hypothesis. If atheist are to built their faith on this flimsy pillar, there is much future for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18
(Alister McGrath made minced meat of Richard Dawkins in this dialogue/debate)

I think you may have been rather selective in your understanding of Habermas, Tristan Ewins.

>>an idea from Jurgen Habermas... supposes that everyone ought be heard in inclusive and rational debate. And that the best outcomes result from the very inclusiveness of this process.<<

I suspect even Habermas, with his free-and-easy approach to theories of human communication, would balk at the concept of a meaningful outcome from a debate, for example, as to which is better, cheese or steam locomotion.

It is quite possible to be over-inclusive, and miss the entire point of communicating in the process.

>>Many Christians today reject sweeping application of 'literalism' when it comes to scripture.<<

Many don't. What does that say about Christianity?

Apart, of course, from the fact that it is "inclusive", and that, in being so, masks or conceals the entire point of the scripture in the process.

The reality is, as Tristan Ewins comes very close to admitting, is that because there is no absolute truth to be found in the Scriptures themselves, it is impossible to build a consistent religious philosophy upon them.

This applies, of course, equally to the Qur'an as it does to the Bible.

By simple extension, it is clear that those people who quote from one or the other in order to "prove" a point are engaging in a particularly abstract, sterile and profoundly misleading pusuit.

Nor am I particularly convinced by this.

>>admitting that the true meaning of much scripture is hidden - is a first step in engagement between religion and science<<

I would have drawn the opposite conclusion. That such an admission would provide the most convincing justification possible for separating the two, religion and science, once and for all.

Pericles - re: your comment about literalist Chrisitians - you say: "what does that say about Christianity?"...

It doesn't say anything about Christianity 'as a whole': because there are so many currents of Christianity - many of them radically different.

Those who are literalist with regard to mysteries may be genuine in their faith. But there are parables - and there are deeper mysteries - in all manner of spiritual traditions. (not just Christianity) And just because we cannot appreciate the truths behind these immediately - that does not mean we should reject these out of hand.

Imagine living in the 14th Century: and trying to explain spectrums of light - frequencies of light and sound. Imagine trying to explain different states of consicousness and brainwave patterns. Most people of that period would dismiss those ideas out-of-hand.

Today the same principle applies: We should not dismiss simply because we have not yet the means to understand.

Man created god in his own image and aethieism is just a reactionary movement that has it foundations based on a negative. ie disbelief.

Neither of these seemingly opposing views service the needs of our common humanity.They are both reactionary and anticquated.

You only have to look into the nature and how our present science is unable to explain most things happening in our cosmos.We now have concepts of other universes,accessed via black holes in which totally new rules apply.If you study physics,time space and matter are all interdependant.Space it seems is not just a void.Gravitational forces permeates it's very structure.

These are all non ordinary realites exposing themsleves to our consciousness.Do any of us dare define our existence in simplistic notions of good,evil or pragmatic,aethistic disbelief?

There is a lot more to it than either of these belief systems can provide.I see very little difference between the religions of god or aethism.They serve the same master called our egos.