Her arguments are often purely personal so there’s nothing left to deal with, for instance she says she knew she was a pagan as a little girl. It seems reasonable to ask what happened when she was a little girl that made up her mind and created the pattern of thought that governs the rest of her life. It’s ashame what happens to cloud the mind sometimes.

I can only know what you write, i.e. text that is presumably an artifact of your mind. If that is nothing about you then why are you taking what I write so personally?

2: If I had said I had been a Christian since I was little, would you have gotten so angry?

You’re trying to tell me what my feelings are again and simply assuming that I will accept your own projections. Discussing the history of paganism and making judgments about some forms of paganism, even harsh judgments, is no evidence that anyone is angry about anything. For that matter, it’s possible to treat a pattern of thought with contempt and disdain without being angry about it.

3: If I said I had been Hindu, or had converted to Hinduism, would you have gotten so angry?

If you could try to deal with things without trying to tell others what their personal feeling are then you probably wouldn’t take things so personally. I said that Wicca has more to do with what some fellow in a bathrobe pontificated than sound philosophy and logic and ever since you’ve been saying that I’m an angry fellow. I’m not angry about it. I typically don’t get angry so perhaps I’m not as angry as I should be about such charlatanism.

4: Are your statements about pagans based on actual experience, or Chick tracts.

I’m not sure that Chick is big on some of the Gnostic heresies symbolized in what I referred to above and the like. If you’re going to mention a pattern based on texts that you read then you need to be able to cite it. I’ve never read a Chick tract but if you want to cite one for comparison then I’m interested in seeing it. Perhaps what you mean by experience may reduce to have I given a pagan a lil’ hug to prove that I’m a nice fellow. Why yes, yes I have, yet I can still make some sharply negative judgments about some forms of paganism based on logic and history. That’s because whether or not I’m an angry fellow and so on has no bearing on the history of Nature based paganism and the illogical forms of thought typical to it such as those symbolized by ancient critics.

To me it didn’t seem to be “jumping the gun” to attribute a certain agenda to statements describing how ID theory is in accordance with some tenets of Christian theology. It may not be the case on your part, but usually such argumentation is used directly to support the overall truth of a religion. If part of the body of teachings is in accordance with what appears to be a truth of Nature, then the entire body of teachings must be correct, or so it is argued. In the case of Christianity the various revelatory tenets such as the nature and importance of Jesus appear to be inextricable from the overall theology, so a claim of the validity of another aspect of the theology (correspondence to ID theory) implies the truth of the rest of the theology. That seems to be the thinking here.

If not, then why the effort to show correspondences between the Judeo-Christian world view and ID theory?

–StephenB “Everything turns on our definition of what it means to be human. Besides knowing “what” we are, we also need to know “why” we are here and “where” we are going—or if we are going nowhere. If we can’t answer those questions, then we can hardly know ‘what is fundamental in life.’ Only religion can answer that question,”

We may not know precisely what is fundamental to life, but we can conclude that something is. Knowing clearly “what” we are may well go a long way toward answering why we are here and where we are going. One problem is that we are so full of “concepts” of what we are that the essence of our being is severely obscured. It may be better to begin at least, to understand what we are not. If we subtract enough misperceptions about being, what remains may become clearer.
It may be a stretch to say “only”. Religion may well be helpful in pointing to possibilities that may, or may not, be accurately represented and understood, but non-religious philosophies may go where specific religions cannot.

–StephenB “If a religion shows itself to be untrue, it must be rejected.”

I don’t consider religious teachings to be an all or nothing engagement. Many religious faithful have told me that if I don’t accept all, I must reject all. It’s just not that way. In a genuine search for truth one must gain insight where ever it is found. There is no requirement in life to reject an entire religion or philosophy simply because one disagrees with parts of it. There well yet be some grains of wheat among the chaff.

In any case, it is each individual who is responsible to his/her own experience for what is accepted as true. Good luck on your choices.

—–Webwanderer responds, “I won’t bother to debate your hierarchy except to point out that it omits the most important truth of all…Fundamental truth. Your hierarchy, which leads with religious truth, must be secondary to what is fundamental in life. At least philosophical truth and scientific truth seeks out fundamental truth. It is only religious truth that suffers the restrictions of exclusivity to existing scripture, and therein lies its weakness. The presumption of scriptures written by the hand of God or by “his” emissaries, as being inviolate is more of a barrier to discovery than it is a guide.”

(1) It was the religious notion that God created a rational universe that gave science the confidence to probe in earnest for regularity and order. While the Greeks introduced a special approach to science, it was left for Christianity to confirm that God is not frivolous, meaning that he does not surprise his creatures by changing the laws of nature on a whim. Scientists came believe that God created a rational universe and that they could “think God’s thoughts after him.” This confidence propelled science to new heights, and is the real foundation for all modern science. The new kid on the block, methodological naturalism, has turned out to be a juvenile delinquent.

(2) Revealed truth is indeed risky business. That is why we should put every religion and every religious leader to the test of reason prior to giving our assent of faith: (a) Was the religious leader foretold or pre-announced? We don’t want to be caught off guard by a false prophet. (b) Did the leader perform miracles and “attribute those miracles to his Divinity? Anyone can claim to have been sent by God. (c) Did the leader ever say or do anything contrary to right reason. What sense does it make to turn one’s life over to a charlatan? I personally would not submit to any religious tradition or leader that cannot pass that minimal test.

—–Your hierarchy, which leads with religious truth, must be secondary to what is fundamental in life.

Ah, yes, but how do we know what “fundamental” is? If we live beyond the grave, the definition of what matters most is far different that if we don’t. If we are “fallen angels,” (Christianity), that is one thing, if we are risen beasts (Darwinism), that is something entirely different. If we have inherent dignity (Christianity), that is a radically different than being abject slaves (Islam). Everything turns on our definition of what it means to be human. Besides knowing “what” we are, we also need to know “why” we are here and “where” we are going—or if we are going nowhere. If we can’t answer those questions, then we can hardly know “what is fundamental in life.” Only religion can answer that question, and individual religions can only answer them to the extent that they are legitimate representations of the will and mind of God. Legitimate authority is a wonderful thing; illegitimate authority is a terrible thing.

—–“Nothing is beyond question in an honest search for truth, especially our religious tenets, if for no other reason than the intensity in which we guide our lives by our religious faith. If our religious beliefs are true, then our search for truth is no threat to them and can only reinforce them. If, on the other hand, our religious beliefs are faulty, do we not want them exposed as soon as possible? Would we not want to be free of our misperception and ignorance? To feel otherwise is disingenuous and has no place in science of any kind.”

Exactly right. If a religion shows itself to be untrue, it must be rejected. Obviously, that also applies to the religion of materialism. Only the mad man has no doubts. Isn’t it interesting that neither radical Islamists nor militant atheists ever have any doubts at all? That is why, in the name of their religion, one group murders infidels while the other murders babies. Nor does either group hesitate to enslave all in their path on the grounds that the “true” religion must be enforced. I’m with you all the way on this one. Give me the man who asks questions and spare me the self-assured ideologue.
On the other hand, we should not fall into the error of believing that there is no such thing as truth. Radical skepticism is not the antidote to intolerant dogmatism. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “the purpose of opening the mind is to close it on something solid,” namely truth. To pursue truth passionately and defend if faithfully—- without being an insufferable ideologue—that is the challenge.

PlatosPlaything: Try not to respond in kind.

Solon: I’ll be watching you closely.

I won’t bother to debate your hierarchy except to point out that it omits the most important truth of all…Fundamental truth. Your hierarchy, which leads with religious truth, must be secondary to what is fundamental in life. At least philosophical truth and scientific truth seeks out fundamental truth. It is only religious truth that suffers the restrictions of exclusivity to existing scripture, and therein lies its weakness. The presumption of scriptures written by the hand of God or by “his” emissaries, as being inviolate is more of a barrier to discovery than it is a guide.

Nothing is beyond question in an honest search for truth, especially our religious tenets, if for no other reason than the intensity in which we guide our lives by our religious faith. If our religious beliefs are true, then our search for truth is no threat to them and can only reinforce them. If, on the other hand, our religious beliefs are faulty, do we not want them exposed as soon as possible? Would we not want to be free of our misperception and ignorance? To feel otherwise is disingenuous and has no place in science of any kind.

(1) To say that the Bible is pro-ID is not to say that ID is to be Judeo/Christian. It is not a “bi-conditional proposition–that is if A/then B does not translate into If B/than A. You seem to be jumping the gun a little bit here.

(2) Truth comes to us in a hierarchy. Religious truth illuminates philosophical truth, which, in turn, illuminates scientific truth. Also, religious truth itself comes in hierarchies. All religions contain “some” truth; each contains varying degrees of truth. The religions themselves array themselves in a “truth” hierarchy.

(a) To what extent does a religion acknowledge a monotheistic God?

(b) To what extent does a religion recognize the inherent dignity of the human person?

(c) To what extent does a religion facilitate moral growth?

(d) To what extent can a religion provide the philosophical underpinning for
a well-ordered society?

(e) To what extent does a religion reflect the human condition?

(f) To what extent does a religion faithfully reflect the necessary conditions for salvation?

The list could contain at least fifty more questions. On another post, I actually placed them in a hierarchy, but I will leave that judgment to you for now. Suffice it to say, that “the one and only truthful Divine teaching” is much too simplistic a formulation.

—–“That the Bible appears to promote a “realistic” epistemology and metaphysics in accordance with ID theory is apparent, and is obviously why many ID advocates are Christians. But the primary message of the New Testament is the message of Jesus. This is interpreted as the teaching of Jesus as the one and only Son of God, of the Triune God, and that any who do not accept Him are destined to eternity in Hell. Other claims often made include that Scripture is the direct Word of God to be interpreted literally. These revelatory and exclusionary claims are not established as the truth just because the general epistemology and metaphysics of the Bible appear to be in accordance with ID theory.”

That’s true. Once again, you seem to be jumping the gun. Those extrapolations are yours, not mine.

—-To my statement—“The Bible promotes a “realistic” epistemology and realistic metaphysics….We do not get this vision from any other belief system, either from atheism or Islam…..Only the Judeo/Christian world view in harmony with Aristotle and Aquinas can provide it.” ——————-You responded, “This is quite a claim and you would need to establish this. Please include the Bahai faith, Buddhism, Vedanta and Theosophy. Even if it were true, a non-Christian relationship with God is not precluded.”

(1) The Bible is very clear in saying that (a) God is creator, and (b) that the design in nature is manifest to the point of being self evident, so much so, that anyone who would deny it is “without excuse.” Do you know of any other belief system that teaches anything like (b)? In this sense, the Judeo/Christian vision is exclusive, is it not?

(2) I have no idea why you introduce that subject of establishing a “relationship with God,” since I did not discuss it in any way.