Otokonoko,

Welcome to this discussion.

I would take the view we should take religion seriously but in the context of history (as you allude) and anthropology and even neurology (e.g., neocortex rationalising limbic system’s survival instincts as “afterlife”). I would not take the view we have understanding of how we have come to being, from religion; rather I would look to science. I would see the postulation that “a divine entity created us” as a degraded heuristic/notion, like the solid state universe. The evidence is strongly against the assertion. Instead, I find as particle physics as becomes more refined the need for an external agent fades. In October 2010, we might have confirmation of matter is created (CERN), wherein science does explain fundamental matter.

True, objectivity, I put, suggests that the investigator look “towards” rather than “from” the religious entity studied. H.G. Well’s classic “The Outline of History” is quite detached, with the occasional apology to not offend) on ancient religions. Wells notes that Serapis (Osiris + Apis) and Isis (Hathor) and Horus trinity that:

“Hourus was the only beloved son of Osiris (Serapis) … he was the intercessor with the Father for sinners and he is depicted in the Book of the Dead … pleading for the deceased. He ‘ascended to the Father’ and became one with the Father.”

Similarities between the above and the Nicaean Trinity are evident.

Moreover, the Jewish missions of the House of David, under the Herodians, would not have entertained the fusing/theocrasia of gods/godhead as did Egyptians and the Christians of Constantine’s time. The historical Jesus, I see, as a Jew ministering the gentile godfearers. When tail began wagging the dog, there was schism and a new Christian myth created. The tail began wagging the dog, when the Jews were expelled from the Holly Land and a Latin Bishop appointed; so this originally Jewish outer sect could return to Jerusalem. Circa 250 until 325, the Latinised sect became institutionalised as a religion. The historian needs to be detached (as in science) to see what happened. Herein, context is best seen from a distance.

George,

From before and after Newton there have been many academic theists, I am sure. I was meaning non-theist academics with an interest in religion and especially those non-theist specialising in studying religion. Detached academic persons with an interest in theology/religions. As mentioed above, folk, who look "towards" religion(s) (from afar), rather than from a religion (from within).

Mathematically, I see Nicaean Christianity like Procrustes Rotation: Doctrines are slected, harmonised and cut to fit the Bed of the Creed.

What if theism is the Elephant and the various religious merely parts of the pachyderm? Is there an anthro-theo-zoologist in the House? :-)

OUG,

Re: Your Comment on Water into Wine

The Bible says that Jesus changed water into wine. This is informative because it does not say that Jesus made water, wine, which would have been a miraculous substitution. Water has two elements, whereas, wine has many elements, including traces of metal (e.g., Iron). Were Jesus to have “changed” water “into” wine, the energy released by nuclear transmutation of valencies would have blown Cana off the map. Heavy metals are normally created at the temperatures of stars.

On the other hand, if Jesus contained the liquids in a magnetic field (as in plasma physics), I suspect, there would still be residual radiation, after the field was dropped. Is Cana radioactive? If the location of Cana is known, then bring in the Geiger counters. Ockham’s Razor would suggest the event is an invented story or that the wine was there all along.

Maybe, we need to re-focus and follow david f's recommendation and look at value of science and the scriptures. Thanks.

Dear david f,

I agree with practically all you wrote above.

>>it is unnecessary to have a belief in religion to learn about it and to have an idea of what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.<<

I agree, in the same sense that one can understand theoretical physics, have an idea of what it says about e.g. electromagnetic radiation, without being able to sensually experience colour and appreciate visual beauty, e.g. when one is blind.

Very roughly speaking, a theist’s external view of the atheist’s position is that he/she is lacking a sense of the numinous (Rudolf Otto), an atheist’s external view of the theist position is that this sense is a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc.

I think we can learn also from the external, even if unsympathetic, looks at our own world-view presuppositions. As my wife would say, I cannot tell you how you FEEL in your clothing (only you know that), but I can tell you how you LOOK in it (never mind the mirror).

>>we can make useful studies of both consciousness and religion without sharing either.<<

I think this is very well put, except that I - as a person with “continental roots” - would write “world-view” instead of “religion” since many people do not like their personal convictions to be brought into contact with religion. Actually, it is a reasonable requirement, to study other people’s world-views, before entering into meaningful exchange of views. This can (or should) lead to the broadening of one's own perspective, even if it usually does not lead to a complete understanding of the subjective reasons for the "world-view presuppositions" of the other consciousness.

Oliver,

My comment was only a reaction to your finding “it a challenge to encourage theists (on this OLO) to … study religion as might an academic”. It seemed to follow that you needed to lecture theists on this OLO on how “to study as might an academic”. Otherwise please read what david f wrote on different views, and my comments on that.

You can “see Nicaean Christianity” as you like, however the relation of that view to mathematics escapes me. Also, I see you misunderstood my metaphor with the “elephant” as a phenomenon (that as such is beyond dispute), and not as a belief system (you might or might not share/like).

As to

>>Similarities between the above and the Nicaean Trinity are evident. << etc.,

in your post to Otokonoko, he might be interested that we two have been through that on this OLO many times. As before, I appreciate you bringing up certain similarities, though Otokonoko will probably know more about it than I. And, as before, my reaction would be that I do not mind if you point out to me that I share 95% of my DNA with a chimpanzee as long as you do not try to draw conclusions from that about my reducibility to a chimpanzee.

.

Dear George,

.

I understand you are wondering what religion is and what purpose it serves.

I take it to mean a conviction or set of convictions for which there exists no scientific or historical proof.

Religion may be unique to a single individual, or shared with any number of individuals.

My understanding is that its purpose, like its meaning, has evolved over the years in order to survive.

From providing a simple explanation of natural phenomena to a convenient means of maintaining social order and cohesion, religion continues to serve the state and its political rulers.

It provides a certain number of services which participate in structuring the community and laying the basis for harmonious relations among its members. The services are vast and comprehensive and irrigate the entire community from the most humble to the most distinguished of its members, essentially in the domains of education, health and social welfare, not to forget, of course, the all important confessional for the Catholics.

For political rule to be effective there must be social cohesion. Astute political rulers have always had recourse to religion to disseminate their control throughout the community and establish social cohesion in line with their policies. In return, the rulers afford protection, support and finance as well as numerous other favours to the religious organisations and their representatives providing the services.

Also, as Sigmund Freud may possibly have pointed out, it is the promise of heavenly bliss that allows us to sublimate those all too familiar companions, our earthly woes.

That is probably the most powerful ant-revolutionary argument that was ever invented, "the opiate of the people", as Karl Marx observed, borrowing the expression from the Marquis de Sade’s novel "L’Histoire de Juliette", published in 1797.

.