Hello BD,

Simply put, I am trying to recommend to Sells and others, that, "a priori" approaches are inappropriate in investigation. It is better not to start the pathway of knowledge half-way alone the road. It is preferable; to deal with primary sources, not wear blinkers and is better to triangulate sources. Moreover, ideas should be held tentatively (even atheism)and tested.

Herein, I am trying to disprove Sells' approach.

Peter made the commitment to write in the public domain, and seems from the comments of more senior established posters'readers, he has a history of avoiding issues:

Herein, I am trying to suggest his judgement is limited not in respect to his "theological" knowledge; rather, how theological knowledge is better managed under the canopy of many other disciplines. ... Prove/Disprove?

For Sells, we start out with a theological position and bend all else, to fit an original mindset. For me, everything is on the table, and we shuffle through the facts, with really ever finding a state of rest. ... Very different.

The citing of the history of myths, Alexandra as a God Factory (Wells) and the strong evidence of an "undifferentiated" JC product, is meant to show the architecture of Sells' faith is no different to many, many others:

Herein, the HOW, in "How God/Gods exist "is" known to histographies and anthropology, and, reinforement schedules are known to psychology, and the biology foundation of learning to neurology.
... Pragmatic not faith-based approach.

My target is others, by leveraging Sells in debate. My goal is to encourage investigators holding a positive heuristic to consider alternatives, and, to invetsigate the same "critically" from multifarious sources. ... A clear challange Sells

Cont...

At no level am I out to "get" Sells. At some level, perhaps, I am guilty of relentlessly trying to encourage him, so he can see for himself, how he operates towards limited ends. At all levels, I would encourage Sells (and others), to see the face of the mountain not just the inside (Confucious). ... The alternative approach to addressing Sells' question, How does God exist?", as a matter of course, questions the structure of Sells' belief. ... And emphatically posit the stronger heuristic. ... If God (s) exists, Sells' approach does support belief. Said existence (which I doubt), would be merely conincidental.

Whether one believes in god or does not believe in god, it is informative to test one's position.

Sells writes, I assume in good faith (ahem) or maybe he likes his name in print. Perhaps both. He also is probably strongly embedded in self-confirming references groups, whom reinforce his beliefs: I would this out to Sells. But, at the end of the day, Sells will believe, what Sells's will believe. In the face of contradictory evidence, withdrawal and ego-defence mechanisms seem like to protect his current mindset. Would I like to break this shell? Probably, yes. Would, I want harm Sells. ... No. Suspect, his religiosity, his feelings towards me not be reciprocated. ... Suspect my humanism and willingness to debate are stronger.

I have seen few people cross-over, from religionism, including a ex-Pastor friend, whom saw the real light, when studying comparative religions in a Master of Theology degree. Afterwards, each appreciated the transition. (and changed to an MBA!).

BD, What do you think? How far would you press a point? If it okay for Sells to skip from article to article the way he seeming does, without sound engagement? Am I too tough on Sells?

Oliver,

Thank you for a clearer explanation of your overall perspective vis-a-vis Sell's and this post.

I did not mean my posts to impute you had ill-intent towards Sells' personally and i do agree with some of your position, reference to Sells' arguments/posts (possibly not all and possibly for differing reasons)

I do agree - questioning one's own position is always valuable as we can often be misled away from truth. Particularly by our own 'egotistical' or ideological biases.

Time is limited at present but i would like to respond more fully later.

I enjoy reading your posts even if i might not always find my thought convergent with yours (or Sells), or many other posters if it comes to that! : )

BrainDrain, when you say .....
"Kieran's (sic) comment of 'relying upon Religion to fix... problems' is as inaccurate as is the 'God is responsible for all wars' fallacy."
AND then say .....
"For anyone who cares: Mine is that 'God is the sum total of everything that was, is and not yet is'. Lets see anyone tear that apart."
THEN ....
'God is responsible for all wars'.

ALSO ....
The use of "religion" in the context of that statement I made was in reference to supstitious mind viruses that all share this view of truth as revealed, rather than observed or discovered. This approach to belief is belief in belief which is quite simply the basis of all religious pathology. i.e. Hoping for a Messiah or an anointed one or a pure miracle associates more to the lazybrained that to a humble disposition. e.g. Handel's Messiah oratorio, where hallelujah, only by the grace of teddy will we be saved. LOL

If people need a broader "religion" with something more in their lives than just the material world then just study what is, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing. The infinite environment is an orderly place where one can only feel privileged with eyes to see where we are and brains to wonder why. Teddies, poltergeists, angels, fairies or funny spirits don't intervene and hurl things about for reasons of mischief or caprice.

Deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, the microscopic workings of biology and heredity, the enormous data bank our tiny lonely planet has bequeathed us, all contain more beauty and wonder and are a trillion times more important and interesting than myths, pseudosciences, ritual sacharrine adoration and flattery of imagined teddies (gods) that dumdums are so attracted to.

Just seems we have to manage the change over from living with the disasters of the religious past to an understanding that we live in a brilliant material universe where there are real enticement rules that you do get to vote on.

Oliver,
I can see positives in both your and Sells' approaches (although i detest Sells' inability to answer your questions or talk 'down' to me and others of my 'level' to correctly reveal his knowledge, as i feel he sees it).

I like the contigious line of knowledge throughtout human consciousness Sells espouses, albeit seemingly made 'perfect' through one human almost 2000 years ago, which seems to be what he rely's most strongly upon as his foundation. His knowledge is not 'common understanding' but the superior esotric form known and passed on only to those prepared to devote their lifestyle to it in True 'relligio(L)' fashion.

I feel you (and for the first thirty years of my life, I) argue against the exoteric form of this knowledge with the tools we have had honed for us by humanists and the more intelligent non-clergy of the last 500 years, without full understanding of the original 'starting point'.

A suitable analogy i see is the distinction between the cardinal and ordinal number systems. both orderly and logical when observed in their correct context but one includes zero and one cannot.

As far as human understanding of our 'place' in the universe is concerned whether we use ordinal or cardinal 'numbering' is what we should be trying to find agreement upon, or better yet mutual understanding of.

I feel you cannot adequately define 'zero' in terms of your ordinal system and Sells' insists upon keeping his 'true' understanding of Zero (God) a secret known only to the priestly classes, refusing to discuss it for fear of common 'impure' understanding maligning it for the masses.

Keiran (apologies: I have the same problem with 'kieth')
I acknowledge the technically correct argument you pose with relation to God/war. The problem is that man tries to use it to deny personal responsibility for war. Humans ar far from perfect because we are finite. God is 'perfect' because God is not finite not because 'he' is 'good'.
(cont.)

Humans and human imprefection is responsible more directly for war than war being any 'creation' of God. I was trying to get such 'denialists' to recognise where the blame actually is held most strongly.

As for religion, we imperfectly understand and use the term today.

Many believe it to be a poor 'mythology' others have in their quite busy and unenlightened, superstitious lives. Many actually display such in their self-proclaimed 'ownership' of such 'religions'. (often containing a massive hypocrisy)

Such people are, while in the majority perhaps, not to be used for accurate examples of what religion is intended to be. Nor to be included in the derision of Religion. To do so is as 'logical' as trying to disprove mathematic principles because many of the masses cannot 'do' long division or add up correctly.

Religion is more accurately an attempt by an individual, through complete devotion of their way of life (not the half-hearted attempts that would sicken Jesus), to perfect and know one's self by following a true understanding of an infinite 'God'.

However hard mankind tries, following our own (human) self as an example of 'perfection' to follow is doomed to failure since we (Scientists and Atheists included) are clearly less than perfect.

By following Man we are simply a dog chasing it's tail. By understanding the perfection of God we at least have a clear purpose and goal to 'start' from and a 'path' to follow (IF we are prepared to put the necessary ground work in beforehand).

It is a pity that mankind is so imperfect as to so frequently insist upon trying to change the definition of God, because we cannot let God BE, but insist upon making him somehow more like us as we think we grow out of previous limited understandings and move into yet another misunderstanding in the hope of 'learning' something.

We should be spending more time 'knowing thyself' than in speculating on the misunderstandings of all the 'others'.

We might then be better able to (scientifically/economically) understand and conform to the Universe around us.