Craig Minns,

In my view, Geertz’s definition fits mathematics only as far as it speaks of a “system of symbols”. There are no mathematical models useful in religion (except perhaps in its sociological manifestations), and no mythological symbols useful in (contemporary) science.

I think I should have pointed to the four steps, stages or levels of what I believe about ultimate reality, as formulated in e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883 : Briefly, Step 1 is a belief in a dimension of reality that is beyond the reach of sciences, physical or social, called the supernatural, divine etc dimension of Ultimate Reality. A this level I share my beliefs with Einstein and Spinoza and if I understood you properly, also with you.

Step 2 is a belief - shared by all Abrahamic religions - that this divine dimension is best modelled or represented by the concept of a personal God (Step 3 refers to Christian specifics of this model, and Step 4 to the RC version of these specifics).

In everyday language we say that God (or divinity in your language) is a person in the same way as we say that our planet is a rotational ellipsoid (without reference to modelling or representation) although in fact we do not mean that God is a person like you and I, neither that our planet is a mathematical entity.

In everyday language, God either does or doesn’t exist. Like horses exist, unicorns don’t, or more abstractly, gravitation does, phlogiston does not. On an even more abstract level of contemporary, often still speculative, theoretical physics it becomes more confusing to decide what of our concepts and ideas exist, i.e. refer to something out there, and what do not (e.g. are just a necessary pure-mathematical ballast in the model of physical reality). I tried to explain these things in my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464, where I also confessed my inclination towards Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism.

(ctd)

(ctd)

So if the nature of physical reality is not at all clear (in spite of what physicists thought just a hundred years ago and laymen still do) then even more so should be the nature - modelled by philosophy and religion - of the Ultimate Reality, i.e. going beyond the physical, if one believes in such Reality, i.e. accepts my Step 1.

>> Barr does not understand the idea of self-organising systems, so he ridicules it <<

I don’t think he, a physicist himself, ridicules any scientific theory - be it neo-darwinism or self-organising systems or what - but Dawkins’ claim that you can answer a philosophical question - like decide about the existence or non-existence of God, whatever way you understand the concept - from within science, using scientific methods.

>>you have a religio-cultural one and I have a psycho-scientific one. The subject is the same, but the explanatory narrative is different<<

The question of religion and God cannot be tackled from this or that explanatory narrative ONLY (c.f. only one blind man deciding about what is an elephant). Faith can - does not have to - find its rational justification only from the multiplicity of these different explanatory narratives. See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16973#298668.

Sells,

>>I have difficulty with the idea that faith is a human construct. … I would rather that faith is a response to a reality outside of ourselves. <<

I agree, however this assumes the existence of such reality outside ourselves and the physical. Anyhow, Craig and I referred to religion, not faith, which is a human phenomenon which many can attempt to explain, investigate by reason.

On the other hand, I agree that the nature of such Ultimate Reality, especially of God, cannot be “investigated” by reason only modelled by metaphysical constructions (Aquinas) or - for a Christian - by faith based on the Scripture and tradition, the two approaches being not mutually exclusive as I tried to argue. So in principle, I agree with what you wrote.

Craig Minns and Sells,

Happy New Year to both of you.

George,Sells, I think we are converging on a limit through our different paths.

I was going to give a more detailed answer, describing where I feel my own view may differ from the one you have put forward, George, but I've decided it probably wouldn't add a great deal to the discussion to quibble. Suffice to say that I am happy to accept that both of you are men of good faith and as long as good faith exists, details will soon enough work themselves out, or be seen to be unimportant.

I thank you both for a fine and friendly discussion and I will ponder what you have said. Possibly we can discuss further at another time. It is undoubtedly a complex topic of great interest. Thanks again.

Gary Johns' neoliberalism deserves condemnation in the strongest terms, so I applaud Craig Minns' eloquent understatements in particular.

There seems little to add, except perhaps pointing out that the largess ('dole') Johns resents is actually a pittance; mere subsistence and hardly an 'alternative lifestyle', unless supplemented illegally.

Generational poverty/welfare is the product of a rotten system; it's not that the 'victims' are dysfunctional, but that the 'lifestyle' is.

We all need encouragement to lead more purposeful lives, but the treadmill that the majority is consigned to (about which Johns and the piebald elite would know nothing) can be difficult to enthuse over (sans the 'reward': mindless consumerism).

This applies to anyone 'aware' of their minion status (surprisingly few), but especially to our social pariahs and outcasts.

Oops, that post obviously not intended here. Though I'm also sympathetic to your position here, Craig Minns.

So am I, Craig Minns, and again thanks you for the challenge to try to fathom the unfathomable.