MtheGM, I think you've been listening to too much Dawkins propaganda.

You say, "these high principles on which he has based his entire life & thinking rest on a series of facts and postulations which just ain't so."

Well, yes, I do live my life on high principles. Those principles are based on rational thinking* about what I want to accomplish in life, not on any particularly religious principles. And by the way, my perspective is that you live your own life based on high principles that are also derived from rational thinking.

I addressed this issue in a message to you above:

To my mind, God doesn't really deal with authority - that's a human concept. God simply is. I see God as the Essence of All, as Love, as That Which Is Beyond. I see that God as worthy of pondering and of awe, which is my form of prayer. It works for me, and I'm not particularly concerned whether it works for anyone else.

I realize that this differs from the idea of God as defined by the Dawkins Doctrine, but it's a more accurate understanding of the God that non-fundamentalist people revere.

If you see things through the eyes of a number of philosophical schools, everything has an essence of one sort or another. People can believe in an essence, whether they believe in God or not. I see that essence as sacred - but whether it's sacred or not, it's still there.
And most people believe in Love, whether or not they believe in God. I see Love as sacred and divine. But whether Love is divine or not, it still exists.

Non-ideological people of faith see the same things everybody else sees, but they see a divine element in what they hold sacred. So, their faith is seeing the same things through a different perspective, a perspective of sacredness. It's like seeing life through a really great pair of sunglasses, with an added dimension of richness and wonder...and sacredness. Now, other people have other perspectives that add depth to their perception of life. No perspective is better than the other - they're all valid, and they're all different.

I submit that despite the false misdefinition of faith that Mr. Dawkins has so effectively promulgated, faith doesn't "rest on a series of facts and postulations which just ain't so." Faith is a different perspective, but it can be every bit as valid as the perspective of one of you enlightened atheists.


And then you Dawkins atheists are going to want to attack the Bible, and I think maybe you need to accept the fact that there are valid ways of looking at sacred writings that are far different from the fundamentalist understandings that Mr. Dawkins proposes. Most cultures, including our own, have ancient writings that have been held sacred for centuries or even millennia. There is great truth to be found in the sacred writings of almost every culture, if those writings are understood in proper context. And a simplistic, fundamentalist, literal understanding of such writings is almost always wrong.

So, Michael, drop the propaganda and think again.

-Joe-

*Musket accuses me above of a "simplistic condemnation of rational thought." He hasn't answered my request for an explanation. Until he explains, I'm going to believe that I do hold rational thought in high esteem.

Oh, and while I'm at it, I gotta say something about that "give me a child" statement attributed to the Jesuits. All that stuff about that phrase being just the underpinnings for brainwashing, is propaganda from the Dawkins machine. It's a major part of their "doctrine." Look it up.