Our cosmology is grounded in reality, while christology is held up in faith and that is way they are incompatible. This is the fundamentalist point, once you allow reality to bound your beliefs, then you are no the slippery slop to theistism , agnosticism and even out right Atheistism. It's true many people find toe holds along the way to support their faith. The reality is those toe holds are generally based on ignorance of reality not a conformation of faith.

"Toe holds?" Is such the basis of your "faith?" I'm Christian and don't remember reading this term in the Bible, or anyplace else.

Here's something else you can "bite into" besides toes. When disussing female rights in this place, I received unfulfilled promises by posters to promote my novel -- author proceeds go to prevent child abuse. It hurt the project, and children because I'd wasted time, such a limited commondity for humans. I'm 55 with bad health habits and issues, and have no time to waste.

Email me and I'll give you more info. The prevention of universal child maltreatment is way more important than theoretical theology. It will give you something meaningful to do, well beyond presenting religious views about which the less contributing to humanity often argue.

robert_t@charter.net

According to Western Middle Age history, it was St Thomas Aquinas who finally began the earthly enlightenment which lifted Christianity out of the Spiritual Dark Ages, which taught that death for a devout Christian was preferable to life on earth.

It is so interesting that many of the more learned central Middle East Moslems of the time, different to the way they are now, still retained their Aristotlean heritage to the point that many spread the message containing a mixture of early Greek reasoning and a faith in Allah.

It has been pointed out by Western philosophers how Aquinas wrote the thesis proving that not by faith alone but enhancing it with reason that gave the earthly impetus to Western Christianity.

In fact, it is said that our Western earthly enlightenment became and has been so dramatic with its retained admixture of the Old Testament belief in the Promised Land that we have unfortunately driven a formerly more liberal and progressive Islam into its own escapist but vengeful Dark Ages.

Perhaps there is a way to explain, in further biblical terms. There is nothing to suggest that Christ did NOT physically rise and ascend into heaven. This is not to say that humans will do the same. Whilst Christ may have the power to do this bodily, the bible teaches that we are made IN THE IMAGE of God, not of the same stuff. So basically we look somewhat like God, but are not able to do the same things (obviously, or we would be resurrectting people left right and centre - imagine the population problems then). So I personally find that it is not too hard to be able to accept on some level that whilst Christ may have been able to do these things, our bodies will not be able to follow the same paths. It is our soul that is eternal, whilst our body is just a housing for this soul whilst on Earth.

As for the creed, I am quite comfortable with it. It should in no way be left out of services as it is a central tenent of Christian belief. If you dont believe that this happened, then you are not Christian, you are simply someone that believes in God (as do the Jews and Muslims).

I HAVE JUST READ THE BOOK "JESUS THE MAN" I have no hesitation in recommending it to all, I have been a committed catholic all my life, and found this book very interesting indeed.

Sells tired old entirely exoteric speculations about something that didnt even happen.
And quoting church "fathers" who were essentially misogynists and helped create the body negative and body hating cultural script of puritan Christianity. This entirely body negative script being the root cause of ALL of our seemingly intractable social problems.
Why not by contrast quote the body positive writings, music and art of Hildegard of Bingen or William Blake
These references provide an Illuminated understanding of the body (whatever it is altogether) and everything "else".
1. www.dabase.net/dht6.htm There Is Only Light
2. www.dabase.net/tfrbkgil.htm The Garden of Indestructible Light
3. www.dabase.net/2armP1.htm#ch1 I Is the Body Is Love

This essay provides an esoteric critique of the exoteric misunderstanding of the drama of "jesus".
4. www.dabase.net/exochrist.htm

These three essays provide a description of the devastating cultural consequences of the war against the body at the root of the Christian cultural script.
5. www.dabase.net/2armP1.htm#ch2 The Taboo Against the Superior Man
6. www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
7. www.dabase.net/oltawwfm.htm Heart Breaking Freedom

To insist on the bodily resurrection, even though (as Sells admits) “we all know that the event is impossible,” demands the logic of Lewis Carroll’s white queen, who prided herself on believing “as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” It is not sustainable, leading not just to a “crisis of conscience” but to all-out cognitive dissonance. Mostly this is resolved either in a fundamentalist insistence on biblical inerrancy in preference to reason and evidence; or the privatised, dualist, Gnostic spirituality Sells so despises.

Maybe there is a third possibility, an understanding of resurrection that is neither scientifically risible nor completely spiritualised and disembodied. St Paul perhaps hints at that when he says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” and “there are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another.”

If Sells is pointing to such a possibility, though, he does not explain it. The “imaginary number” analogy is interesting and could be developed further, for though these do not have the qualities of ordinary numbers, mathematicians argue that imaginary numbers are real and important nonetheless.

So to my mind Sells’ article begs the main questions– HOW can a modern person, with the scientific knowledge and respect for reason and evidence of the 21st century, hold to belief in a bodily resurrection? And in what way is that resurrection “bodily”?

Then again... shock horror.. we could actually look at the evidence.

I find plenty to chew on in this thread. Sells included. (bite ? :)

HoHum said :

And quoting church "fathers" who were essentially misogynists and helped create the body negative and body hating cultural script of puritan Christianity. This entirely body negative script being the root cause of ALL of our seemingly intractable social problems.

You forgot Global Warming mate !

Now.. even I would not make such wild claims about Islam, and you KNOW how I feel about that.
Body hating ? why not just go directly to JESUS.."I came that they might have LIFE, and have it abundantly". Now that's a big ask isn't it ? As I read the New Testament I find no reason to 'hate' my body, but I DO recognize a struggle between what my body wants to do at times, and my heart tells me is wrong. No need to illustrate. But that is no reason for self hate.

Brushy.. I take issue with one thing you said, suggesting the Muslims didn't have this dualistic deal about the hereafter ? Unless I misunderstood you. Check this out from one of Mohammeds military commanders under the direction of `Umar ibn al-Khattab who was the 2nd Caliph after Mohammeds father in Law Abu Bakar.

Bhukari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386
The speaker is Al Mughara.

["Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen"]

Here.... fighting ..there...luxury in paradise. Sounds like dualism to me.

Sells.... Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the Life, he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live" John 11:25

Anytime you can give sight to the blind, calm the storm, raise the dead and heal the cripple... get back to me and I'll consider your version :)

David, please read "jesus the man" it will surprise you.

Sells, I take it you believe in bodily resurrection? Presumably that means at judgement day?

Some of my Christian friends also believe in bodily resurrection. They take a literal stance on the apocalypse and wait with bated breath for the end times. Mind you, they disagree violently with each other on the rapture, location of hell (on earth or elsewhere) and myriad other points too abstruse to discuss here.

While the fate of unbelievers such as myself is clear (strait to hell in case you're wondering), there is disagreement over the Jews. Some argue that the New Covenant replaced the Old, others that the New Covenant is specifically for Gentiles and the Old Covenant still applies for Jews (spurious if you ask me).

In your last article, Sells, you suggested that post-Enlightenment thought was of limited value. Looks as though post-Medieval thought is now out as well....

Whatever happened to faith? The Creed readily sums up my beliefs and is recited each Sunday, and very strongly in my Church, which is Anglo-Catholic.

While I have sufficient academic qualifications in social science, they cannot explain everything in Heaven and Earth. The presumption of the "Enlightment project" is preposterous. Mere man (gender neutral ladies) cannot explain everything despite tremendous gains in knowledge and science and the plonkers on the ABC!

Many years ago, the eminent sociologist Peter Berger refuted critics who claimed that he was anti-Christian by writing a neat little work - A Rumor of Angels. Basically, he argues that we have lost our ability to look for the divine - blinded perhaps by our own arrogance. Nothing more demonstrates this point than the furtive scuttling of modern churches for "relevance."

What is needed spiritually is all there in the liturgy, escpecially the Creed and the Lord's Supper. We only need the gift of discernment.

Here I stand, I can do no other (apologies to Martin Luther).

Dear Perikles, nice to hear such wise faith oriented words from you, in contrast to your namesake who uses a 'c' rather than a k in his nick.

The Liturgy is indeed rich in symbolism. I attend a very free evangelical church -Open Brethren, (as opposed to the recently publicized 'exclusive' brand) and while our first service which I don't attend is more traditional, I do miss some of the symbolism and focus on the creed in our less formal service later. Too much casualness can breed a less pure and less respectful attitude to the Father.

One of our problems as Christians is that liturgy is meaningful to some but not to others, so its definitely not one size fits all.

JohnJ... I do hope you will reconsider your present status as 'unbeliever'.. and perhaps delve into the Gospel of Mark (The 'Action Movie' gospel) or look at the vital historical links to the contemporary world in Luke, or the Hebrew style full of Christs teaching in Matthew. I believe contemplation and an open heart would reveal that there is a living Christ to be known, and experienced.
"I am...the resurrection and the life" said Jesus. Maybe do a survey of all the 'I am' passages in John ?

Seldom in the affairs of man can so little effort result in an eternally enduring transaction. Coming to Christ is just that. It is not coming to 'The Church', but in fellowship with brethren and sisters is what the Church really is. "Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them", said Jesus.

John, the various views of rapture, last days etc, are not a reason to feel the Faith is unclear, some people just like to tie up all things neatly, but God has not given His truth to us in that way, apart from the message of repentance and forgiveness and fellowship.
Matthew 25 is quite clear about the final judgement.
regards.

"While I have sufficient academic qualifications in social science, they cannot explain everything in Heaven and Earth."

Well not yet but science is the path that will get us there not belief in the supernational. The enlightenment was and is all about shedding light on ignorance, as opposed to worshipping it. What the Author is trying to do is understand how Christianity can fit in with our new knowledge, how it can be refreshed and reviewed in light of realities of the world in which we live. I'm an atheist so don't agreed with him, but I respect his efforts and his motives. BD on the other hand is one who would belittle humanity destroy what we have built

If I get you right, Boaz, you are intimating that I did not mention that the early Middle East Moslems were dually infuenced by both Greek philosophical reasoning and the Islamic faith.

My earlier Posts should have told you that, especially the genuine history about St Thomas Aquinas accepting reports of travelling Arab scholars spreading the message about the benefits of believing in both Greek philosophical reasoning and faith in either Islam or Christianity.

It is so sad that though Aquinas became a Saint as well as a Doctor of Philosophy, coupled with his more earthly message progressing the Christian West into the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment, his contribution to today's Western thought has never been mentioned over the Pulpit.

My former Post, of course, tells how while we gained out of the faith-reason duality, Islam unfortunately retreated into a more vengeful faith as the West grew more successful, but purportedly too hegemonic.

BODY AND SAUL

Sells provides very interesting posts and for this, I feel he should be commended. The high number of responds demonstrate interest in OLO community. That said, Sells tends to (a) not stand back from the locus of studies and (b) to show old issues --as newly revealed--. recent author cited posits.

The conflict in this article is not new, somehow just brought about by (a) our twenty century knowledge of the Cosmos and (b) “JC’s bones are ‘ molt’n in the grave, but His truth goes marching on’” or should that be The Ascension?

Sells turn back your clock to c.60-64, on the cusp of the First Judaic-Roman War. Paul is trying to convert the Corinthians, after the earlier Jesus sects have already placed emphasis on “The Body”. Jews of the First Century Diaspora tended to a little out of the mainstream and to develop their own customs. Herein, the idea of things happening to a “dead” body may not have been quite as revolting to those guys, as to more orthodox Jews. So, perhaps, Paul could have some sway as a Christian Jewish Sect.

In Corinth (letters to), Paul had an almost impossible job. And as Sells alludes, Paul has largely failed. The conceptual strategies of the Christian Judaism were theocentric, ethical and vita activa BUT the conceptual strategies of the Hellenistic influenced Corinthians was cosmocentric, cognitive and vita contemplativa. Totally, different world views.

Paul tried hard to meld the Jesus sect view of the emphasising the Body WITH the Greek ideal of the Spirit being have ascendance over the Body in spirit-body dualism.

It didn’t work then, and doesn’t work now.

Resurrection of dead bodies, when it was to occur in the End Time, was a Jewish apocalyptic thing, so, the Christian Jew had some idea of the resurrection concept; but the Greeks would have been toally perplexed. Hence, we are left by Paul with some malformed spirit-body composite, with people being members of the body of Christ and congregations of the People of Christ… allusions to the Greek Body Politick.

WHAT ABOUT ME?

We plebs also have the issue becoming spirits OR raptured at the Eschaton. Please don't let Paul write the Script.

DID JESUS USE LISTERINE?

Where is the breath of Jesus?

Technically, we should be breathing-in a few atoms every second, if His breath wasn’t resurrected. Thirty-three years and a real talker! There should be plenty of those atoms going around.

Alternatively, if the atoms contained in Jesus’ breath left our universe… According to the Law of the Conversation of Charge in Quantum Mechanics, some poor anti-particles in other universe have, pooff!!, gone. Hope, such an occurrence, would not have led to the demise of an anti-creature or the collapse of a negative energy bridge.

LOOK UP IN THE SKY! NO, ON THE GROUND!

Maybe, He is not in “low orbit” [now] nor in Palestine. If the orbit decayed, He must have fallen back to Earth and have been taken to Area 51. Of course, the World’s governments would have suppressed this event. So, there is no reference in the Bible or Project Blue Book.

Mulder’s chain smoking forensic scientist contact, however, suggests, such matters, (a) can only be discussed in underground car parks, and, (b) Messiahs, after re-entry, are nude, have big heads, enormous eyes, slit mouths, no genitals and little bodies.

Alleged post mortems by the US Air Force on returned and transfigured Messiahs are denied by Canberra, Washington and the Vatican. Only people whom can’t focus cameras are willing to come forward.

If Jesus would have had either a two or twenty inch penis somebody would have noticed and it would have been so written.

I suppose I continue to remain open to the fact that Jesus of Nazereth may have been a person who lived on planet Earth. Perhaps Jesus was just trying to be some sort of good bloke who didn't die from the crucifixion but was patched up by some friends and went to live to a ripe old age in Kashmir. Naturally, of course he would have told his mates he would come back some day to pay a visit but he never did so.

The formative influences on his life during his "wilderness years" (13 to 30) are of necessity significant but without such "divine revelation" we are forced to have trust and faith. WHY is process and any understanding of causality simply not needed? That is my concern.

One can only speculate about the early Jesus but this emphasis upon the suffering Jesus, his teachings and bits of magic suggest an enlightenment ......... i.e. A Buddhist enlightenment with its Four Noble Truths (concerning suffering) and the Noble Eightfold Path. If Buddhists often speak of the teaching of Buddha as "a finger pointing to the moon" then Christianity only saw the finger which helps to explain that while Jesus may have said he was a son of teddy (i.e. an enlightened person), Christianity comes out with magic that he was THE (only) son of teddy. (AND, forget that one is to see and pay attention to that to which the finger points.)

It is not hard to imagine that Jesus has simply become some artificial construction based on a great deal of inventiveness by teddy cheerleaders where finagling is endemic and a necessary requirement ....... which simply perpetuates this ocean of frothing delusion where one increasingly sees more religious impediments to clear thinking.

Interesting article, Peter !However there are a few points I'm somewhat confused by. I have no problem with the fleshly ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father, but do with the notion that we cannot exist in an afterlife (heaven) in a spiritual form. If we are made in the image of God , and He is both Spirit and flesh (Mt 28:19, Lk 3:21,22), then it follows that we are the same and therefore it is possible that our existence in our afterlife could very well be in spiritual format. Also in Luke (23:43), Jesus tells the criminal hanging beside Him on the day of crucifixion "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." This could only be possible for the criminal if it was his spiritual form, not physical, that entered into paradise. The Old Testament Yaweh was never depicted as being flesh, but is He not Life? To me "the adherence to the body as the only vehicle of life" somewhat contradicts what God Himself is, and as God is the same today , tomorrow and always.....what can I say!

In his parable, ‘The madman’(1882), Nietzsche gives a diagnosis of his time. What it served to do was to further erode the rational foundations of western civilization. In this respect, he can be both blamed and congratulated.

Nietzsche said that the reason Christianity triumphed in the Roman world was that the lowest orders - the meek and the mild - wanted to inherit the earth from their aristocratic superiors. The lower orders were trying to strike back and subdue their superiors. They did this by condemning as evil those traits which they lacked: strength, power and the zest for life. Instead, the Christians made their own low and wretched lives the standard of all things to come. If you deviated from this standard, you were shackled with guilt.

The philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, attacked Christianity because it was contrary to human reason. Because they wanted to make Christianity more reasonable, they retained Christian ethics. Nietzsche attacked Christianity as well - but he did so on the grounds that it gave man a sick soul. It was life-denying. It blocked the free and spontaneous exercise of human instinct and will. In short, Christianity extinguished the spark of life.

“Christianity has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man. . . . Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, ill-constituted, it has made an ideal out of opposition to the instinct of strong life. . . . Christianity is a revolt of everything that crawls along the ground directed against that which is elevated.” – Nietzsche 1888, The Anti-Christ .

Perhaps, after two millennia, we’ll have the courage to discover where the true heresy might lie.

Martin,

Paul, not Jesus, broke the mould of traditional Judaism, towards its Hellenised counterpart, Christianity. However, this transformation had been tried before. From the time of Antiochus I (Epiphanes), there had been unsuccessful attempts to Hellenise Jewish worship to establish an independent Jewish state, under a Messiah.

- Some saw a return of the Kingdom of David.

- Others saw an end time, when “fire from the sky would show God’s ineffable glory”.

Thus, Paul was not fully original; but, to be fair, Paul did turn Tug Boat Willie (Jesus) into Mickey Mouse (God)…

-“Hey Luke”
-“Hi Mark. Hello Boys and Girls.”…

[CLUB SONG]

[Saints]

- Who’s the leader of Paul’s church? It plain for all to see?

[Full Member Retort, Fast]

-Jesus Christ, JESUS CHRIST! He walked through Galilee.

[Short Pause] [Retort, Slower]

- Jesus Christ {Girls only} , JESUS CHRIST! {All Members}

[Longer Pause, Solo Divine Intercept, Strong Voioce]

- Mithras. [Pause] MITH-R-AS!

[Ignoring the Divine Intercept, together {Saints & Members}, slower]

- Let us be sure to hold our gospels, high, HIGH! HIGH!

[Saints]

- Come along. Join in Paul’s song. And live the lie with me.

[Retort]

- “Jesus Christ {Boys only} , JESUS CHRIST! {All Members}

[Solo Divine Intercept, Strong Voice]

- Mithras. MITH-R-AS!

[Together {Saints & Members}, over the end of the Divine intercept]

-Let us be sure to hold our gospels, high, HIGH! HIGH! – HIGH!

[Together {Saints & Members}]

- Come along. Join in Paul’s song. And live the lie with me.

[Saints]

- Jesus Christ, Jesus CHRIST! He walked through Galilee! [song truncated]

[Long Pause] [All Cry Joyously]

- Hey Jay Cee!
- Hey Jay Cee!
- Hey Jay Cee!
- Hey,JESUS CHRIST!
- Its JC Saviour Time. [Cheers, Confetti, applause, general indistinct laughter]

[Long Pause]

[Saints close; sad, very slow, essentially spoken ]

- Sad to say.
- We all can’t go.
- Some must stay. [Lone saint voice: Peter]
- Some can see Paul’s lie.
- You see. [Lone saint voice, emotional, tappers away: Matthew]

St. Paul,

Well done. Pity about the body-soul thing, though.

Relda,

THE STRONG INHERITED THE EARTH

Nietzsche, Hilter and Machiavelli, methinks, would have admired the institution of the Christian Church. Contempt of the weak/soft and praise for the powerful/hard, is everYwhere.

Herein, we have a divide, between the leaders and led, not only in Christianity; but probably all religions. Ulemas, monks and all kinds of priests, proxy gods. I think even Brahman Atman take the part in Upanishad ceremonies? I know an a Brahman Uni.Professor (once on my staff), who travels regularly between to US and India, because his family lead village ceremonies.

Confucianism is ethical, sustaiing an ethical system. But the state of said system turns in accordance with, the Emperor's right to sustain/retain his Mandate of Heaven. This gave Sino court astronomers enormous power. Nietzsche would have approved.

Popes and bishops have leveraged ignorance to suppress the weak. Again, Nietzsche would have approved. Think I have read the SS orgainsationally, at least, influenced the SS.

As with Sells, fostering ignorance, is very powerful. Just look at Martin and Boaz, and, maybe, Sells, himself, as a brainwashed conduit.

Likewise, in the nineteenth century, when archaelogists used the positions of stars on Eygtian astrological monuments to cross-date artifacts, the Christians freaked, when it appeared dates 15,000 years before the present (way before 4004 BCE) appeared in earley calculations. The Churches and their flocks turned against the reasonable endeavours by well intentioned objective investigators.

Under further analysis, the dates matching Eygptian and Roman times became evident. That knowledge could then be held - but that is not the point.

Science empowers the people and lessens the a priori interperations of assistant deacons to Popes. Instead, Nietzsche would be content to have the weak bathe in their ignorance, so, as to be exploited, by, both Church and State.

The strong often acknowledge the strong. Nepoleon, with his bones together, would not allow his infantry fire directly at the Duke of Welligton. Exile and Inter-Marriage were/are big amongst the powerful. After Pearl Harbour, pilots, against their wishes were told don't bomb Chysranthumum Throne. Fire bombing Tokyo... that's okay.

Theological speculation is surely the greatest waste of time ever invented. If anyone doubted it, it would suffice to point to this article and the comments it has spawned. I write this more in sadness than in anger. The fact is, there is no evidence whatever that Jesus even existed. Even if such a historical personage existed, there is no reason to believe that the events described in the gospels - some decades after his alleged crucifixion - actually happened, and every reason to believe they did not. Archaeological evidence continues to reveal the self-serving fabrications of the old testament propagandists, and it's fairly clear that Paul and the gospel writers have continued in this tradition. I don't blame them of course - they were of their time. I do blame any moderns who choose to mire themselves in this myth-making, so blinding themselves to who we actually are, based on an evolutionary understanding far richer and far more deeply rooted than anything derived from so-called sacred texts a mere few thousand years old.

It is not true that "there can be no such number as the root of minus one", only that there can be no such REAL number as the root of minus one, (as there can be no such RATIONAL number as the root of two). Similarly, rather than saying that "we all know that such an event (bodily resurrection of Christ) is impossible" one should qualify this by saying that this event is impossible within (material) phenomena understood by science, and thus absolutely impossible to accept only by an atheist.

Many mathematicians believe in the existence of a "Platonic world" of mathematical concepts and relations, where complex numbers, and many more abstract things "dwell". Every working mathematician has sometimes the feeling that he/she is DISCOVERING existing facts (from this world), and sometimes the feeling of CREATING new stuff. I think this is not unlike the bipolar feeling of a religious person: sometimes I realise that my faith has an objective ground, sometimes it is just an expression of my own imagination (or that of the culture I am part of) .

There are people who do not believe in the existence of a "Platonic world of mathematics", most of them do not even understand what is meant by that. And there are also people who do not believe in the objective referent of my faith, most of those do not even understand what is meant by that. Eugene Wigner spoke of the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in explaining and manipulating the world of physical phenomena, an effectiveness that nobody properly understands. For a believer his/her system of religious symbols offers an "unreasonably effective" explanation and access to a world that he/she sees as existing beyond the material, an effectiveness that also nobody understands. Of course, one can simply ignore things that one does not understand: many do it with both mathematics and religion.

Oliver,
The words, "My God, my God! Why have you foresaken me?" culminate in the weakness and nihilism of the Last Man, he who has also "yielded up the spirit" and now belongs to the living dead. Man, forsaken, loses confidence and strength and yields up the ghost.

It is worthy to note, both Nietzsche and Nazism despised Western Judaeo-Christian Civilisation and its two products, Liberalism and Socialism, introducing a “third option” - aristocratic radicalism - between “corrupt egalitarian democracy” and the “materialist socialism of the mob”. In addition, both advocated the rule of an Aryan universal “Master Race” transcending the boundaries of states and nations; and finally, both Nietzsche and the Nazis dismissed the “decadent” Jew from civilisation, considering him alien to the natural order, an incarnation of the slave morality. One can certainly link the occult character of Esoteric Nazism with the pagan Aryanism of Nietzsche.

It is also worth remembering how long the ‘west’ waited before finally facing the challenge posed by Nazi totalitarianism and Hitler. Many were reluctant to acknowledge that an effort on the scale of what became World War II was actually necessary, and most wanted to believe that the threat could be wished away with trivial sacrifices.

It is no accident that the death of God and The End of History is also attended by "The Sense of an Ending" (Kermode) as The End of Faith (Harris), The End of Reason, The End of Science (Horgan), The End of Modernity (Vattimo), The End of Democracy, The End of Ingenuity (Homer-Dixon) or even The End of Food (Pawlick). "It is finished".

Ostrae (Easter), the Anglo-Saxon goddess of the dawn, shows the ‘finish’ is however, but a part of the cycle.

George.
Thank you for your very thoughtful post. I am reminded of a school boy rhyme:

“A minus times a minus is a plus, for reasons we need not discuss.”

Your post tends to undermine the self-righteousness of the empirical scientist who never tires of claiming the only ground of knowledge. Even that knowledge requires some kind of trust in propositions that cannot be tested.

I liked very much your suggestion from Wigner about the “unreasonably effective” way that faith describes the world in a similar way that mathematics does. In my efforts to combat the rationalists by claiming rationality for theology I neglect this “unreasonable effectiveness” of faith, perhaps another name for mysticism although I have trouble with that. Could “apophatic” be better? Just as we find it difficult to speak about imaginary numbers so too there is an end to language when talking about faith.

Peter Sellic

Peter,
Thank you for your appreciative words. I think only those find it difficult to speak about imaginary numbers or about religious symbols (a think faith is something more than just an understanding of religious symbols) who have not been acquainted with the respective conceptual worlds they belong to. In case of mathematics it suffice to study it, in case of religion I think you also have to live it.

I would not compare mathematics with mysticism, I would rather see the parallels along the lines mathematics -> science (physics) -> material world and (rationalised, Christian) theology -> religion -> "spiritual" world. I think as sensual perception represents a direct contact we have with with the material world (where no mathematical awareness is necessary) so mysticism represents a direct contact an individual can have with the spiritual world with no explicit need for a rationalised theology. This, of course makes neither mathematics nor rationalised theology superfluous.

Sells:

I have no problem thinking Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. Nor is there a problem with sex as prescribed within the bounds of lifelong marriage, as prescribed by God's word.

Life on earth is a gift from God. Life after death is also a gift.
Jesus says "Follow me." Life is to be lived learning to love one's neighbor as oneself (learning to be like Jesus).

What greater plan for life could there be than that? Implementing the words of God will mean peace on earth, literally the antithesis of war an d other forms of violence.

How is that a "spiritual exercise that loses its impact on our daily and fleshly lives"? Following God means the most exciting, interesting way to live life, with God taking the lead, with God's goals as one's own, including "world peace" and the absence of interpersonal violence, both unachievable by mere human means.

"At no time does Jesus become spirit": What of "God is a Spirit" John 4:24?

P.S. any gnostic element(s) comes from the pre-Christian pagan practice of reincarnating until one is able to lose the hated body (the flesh as evil) through "knowledge" or gnosis. Pre-Christian paganism involved human sacrifice which was based on a pre-scientific understanding of the nature of the universe and what it would take to uphold the world and human beings (existence itself). Pagans believed that disembodying the human sacrifice would uphold the world (the slain individual's eyes becoming the sun, etc).

Relda,

-- "My God, my God! Why have you foresaken me?"

Popkin et al., through the differing prisms of Satre (‘Nausea’) and Kierkegaard, notes, the religiously devoted assign elsewhere the consequences of their decisions. Herein, “the saving grace of Kierkegard’s irrationalism is impossible, having chosen it, the responsibility of what follows would be God’s, not man’s”.

Spirit in Heaven, a Body in Palestine:

Had a living Jesus kept his body, for a few hours, after his “spirit” ascended. Jesus, the man-body, would be a living tomb to the Jews and a shell to the Greeks. Very unclean and a frightening aberration. A zombie.

A Miltonian Body-of-Jesus, “A Paradise Locked?” ;-) ?

Being a man-god is problematic for a Saviour. Detachment from heaven, transfiguration and palingesensia are too ill-formed to be perfect. Would not a real God do a better job, i.e., full detachment from the godhead?

--"Nietzsche and Nazism despised Western Judaeo-Christian Civilisation.”

Agree. In a German-made drama on Hitler’s last day’s in the bunker, the actor playing a death-fated Hitler states, “the Western democracies are soft and will loose to the more disciplined East”: Probably posits a Hitler truth.

Yes, Nietzsche would have no time for inferior religious congregations. However, a Pope leveraging his Church to serve personal superior advantage might be more admirable? More recently, Lee Yuan Yew’s ventures into eugenics come to mind.

-- “Challenge posed by Nazi totalitarianism and Hitler”.

Not Fully Nietzsche? Before the “Coming Storm” came, Western countries were insular/protectionist not merely soft.

George,

In a null environment, within non-existence, can a perfect circle exist, as an unobserved concept, without any universe or any god?

Martin and religionists,

(a) How would you infallibly recognise god, if It appeared in history?
(b) If a supernatural power communicates, “I am God”. How do you know the entity IS God?
(c) How do you MEASURE scripture as the GENUINE word of God? How are constructs validated?
(d) Why is the allegedly REAL Christian God copied, as if, from known MYTHICAL theocrasia
(e) Why is God made Man, still part God?

- No links please. Answer the questions

George,

Welcome to the thread.

1. Why do you see theology as antecendent to spirituality? Both theocentric and cosmocentric societies are spiritual. Thus, hinting spirituality comes first?

2. Want to try a few of Martin's questions (above)?

All,

[Could be offline for a few says. Hope no-one was offended by my Mickey Mouse Club parity. I needed an escape to some right brain activity. My point was Paul spun a Hellenised Jesus.]

Peace and clear thoughts,

O.

Oliver,
0. I am not sure what you mean by a perfect circle, probably a physical object whose shape is well modelled by a circle (as part of the Euclidean plane). I do not know if any - mathematical or physical or whatever - entity can exist "in a null environment within non-existence" (whatever that means) without any universe or god. If I understand you properly, you are hinting at the plausibility of assuming the existence of a Platonic world of mathematics. This, of course is a philosophical question but I gather whatever are the arguments for a belief in Plato's world of pure ideas, they are doubly valid in the case of mathematical entities. The mathematician Roger Penrose speaks of three worlds - mental, mathematical and physical - and their interaction (see e.g. 'The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, CUP 1997). I think many, if not most, working mathematicians will agree with this point of view, though surely not all. For a discussion of this see >The Nature of Mathematical Objects< in 'Triangle of Thoughts' (American Mathematical Society, 2001). However, this brings us too far away from the original theme of this thread.

1. Yes spirituality, in its various manifestations, comes first, if I understand you properly. Though theology is an indispensable part of (Christian) religion, you can understand and appreciate its symbols only after you have been exposed to some (Christian) religious experience - most often through education - of which spirituality/mysticism are the highest manifestations. The same as you would not understand and appreciate e.g. the meaning of the number 'three' unless you were previously exposed to the experience of three apples, three bunnies etc. during your childhood. (ctd)

Ah! By George! Here’s the dilemma. What is the nature of the original Christian ‘experience’? Undoubtedly, without a ‘body’ the basis for Christianity disappears – this is the point to which Sells strongly alludes but he cannot abide the mystical. A Resurrection is central to Christian theology (or should I say, “The Resurrection”). The creeds of Christianity, which have carried through into the 21st century, reinforce its mysticism – omnipresence, omnipotence, Eucharistic Transubstantiation (if you’re Catholic). Eastern Orthodoxy prefers the Greek ‘process’ of metousiosis. Nevertheless, 'great mystery' remains – with scientific empericism left well out of bounds in the touching of any such ‘mystery’. To arrive at the actual ‘body’ and ‘blood’ of J.C. (if one is not to compromise scripture) through a communial ritual, the ‘process’ is by necessity, mystical – and certainly non-emperical.

Similar rationale applies to any resurrection ‘event’ – scientific empiricism simply does not nor cannot enter its realm. For two millennia, mainstream orthodox Christianity, has relied on the Resurrection’s ‘physicality’– its accepted ‘truth’ has, over the centuries, given Christianity a certain uniqueness (which understandably, some are loathe to surrender). Undoubtedly, this belief will continue – with only the basis of scripture for ‘proof’.

A basis for ‘faith’ cannot harness emperical science in an endeavour for explanation or ‘proof’ or it is to create a ‘god of the gaps’ – the same pseudo-science that has brought us a retreating and rather narrow view of the ‘creationist’ entity. This literal and dismal god of the heavens, long grown in impotence, continues to terrorize and threaten with his blunt instrument.

But indeed! Christianity is in reality but another animal, far evolved from the original – but perhaps once again, seeking a political potency and ascendancy against and above its other Allah-rival. Showing itself yet again, to be quite unoriginal.

Oliver,(continued)
The same is true about much more sophisticated mathematical concepts and relations: they live in their own world and are indispensable for our understanding of the nature and working of the universe, but originally - e.g. when still Newton "reigned supreme in physics" - we arrived at them through direct, sensual, contact with parts of the physical world that we have access to. Also, I restricted myself to theocentric Christianity but am aware that my analogies would have to be modified to include also the oriental cosmocentric versions of religion.

2. I am sorry but a could not find any contributor here signed as 'Martin'. Could you, please quote explicitly the questions he asked?

relda,
I am not sure whether your comments were directed at me. I only entered this thread because Sells referred to mathematics, where I feel more at home than in e.g. theology. I do not think I would be given enough space here to react to all the points you make. Let me just say that one can find inspiration for a theist and/or Christian world view - as well as for an atheist and/or anti-Christian one - from both history/bible and science/mathematics. As mentioned before, the cognitive part of my faith is inspired by analogy to my conviction through praxis that there is a world of (pure) mathematics that, although "unreasonably effective" for science, it stands beyond the physical as well as the mental (individual as well as collective) worlds. Of course, other mathematicians are inspired in exactly the opposite direction. I think that there are many problems within Christian, or any religious, models of Ultimate Reality as there are many problems with mathematical models (e.g. of contemporary cosmology, "theories of everything") that one cannot understand, not to say try to solve, without being intimately acquainted (a passive knowledge is just a part of this) with the world - theological or mathematical - where the "building blocks" for these models are taken from.

George,

(1) CIRCLE:

You are correct, I was thinking of Plato. What I am alluding to is, the very abstact perfect form does/might not require a god or a universe.

In geometry, as I am sure you know, if you there are an infinite number of circles between the centre of that circle and its circumference. Likewise, what if we go "outside" the circle, and, we imagine wakes of concentric circles moving away from the circle, is the outermost circle bounded by the universe? Is the perfect form bounded by spacetime. Assume the concentric circles are not confined by c, as to create virtual spirals, when drawn. These circles just simply, "exist", cross-sectionally and instantly.

The point is conceptual things "may" exist, without god. Could god prevent the existence of a perfect form? If not, the perfect geometric has an independent existence and is created. Thus, god should spelt with a small "g", where it, god, to exist.

Moreover, if geoometric forms existed without god, why not the universe, if science can introduce infinities to explain away, causality?


(2) MARTIN'S QUESTIONS TO ANSWER (EDITOR:Please excuse double post, asked about it.)

GEORGE, OTHERS, YOU ARE WELCOME TO TRY SOME:

Martin seems must have left in an earlier thread. Sorry to confuse.

-(a) How would you infallibly recognise god, if It appeared in history?

-(b) If a supernatural power communicates, “I am God”. How do you know the entity IS God?

-(c) How do you MEASURE scripture as the GENUINE word of God? How are constructs validated?

-(d) Why is the allegedly REAL Christian God copied, as if, from known MYTHICAL theocrasia?

-(e) Why is God made Man, still part God?

George,

-- Math can throw-up surprises. Dirac c. 1929., did not believe his own discovery of the positron (a negative root derived from expanding E=mc2, Einstein 101, was so iconic).

-- The questions relisted are my questions to Martin... And Sells, if he chooses.

-- I wonder if Penrose's world of the Mind, requires a Mind? QM mirrors the Physical world. What, if any, perfect forms, exist without the Mind? With the physical world as we move from the macro to the ultra-micro, reality blurrs. A shift from the deterministic to the indeterminant. Lisewise, would not the Mind have more concrete posits than the realm of concepts. Concepts, perfect forms, unknown to the Mind, might exist, just as, not all probabilities are normalised from quantum space in this universe?

-- I have tried unsuccessfully to engage Sells. He seems disposed to instructive Rhetoric, whereas, I am more included towards mutualism and dialogue. Closed vs Open communication systems. A priori validation vs revisionism. It takes all kinds... , I guess.

Cheers.

Oliver,
(1) Well, circles are mathematical concepts, and as such are not part of the physical universe and space-time. So a "circle bounded by the universe (or space-time)" does not make sense to me. Mathematical concepts can only be applied to features of the physical world, and I think something similar is true about religious symbols. Otherwise, I think you are right that one can believe in a Platonic world of ideas (if this is what you mean by perfect form) without believing in the Christian (or any other) God. I could name many famous mathematicians who subscribe to the idea of a Platonic world of mathematics existing outside the physical world as well as outside our mental world, who are atheists or at least agnostics.

(2a,b,c) You want statements about God etc. to be falsifiable, in the popperian sense, which they are not, since they are not scientific statements falsifiable e.g. by experiments. If they were, belief in God would not be of more merit to the believer than "belief" in the existence of Alpha Centauri or the irrationality of the number pi. There are many things which you cannot falsify - e.g. the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or for that matter of any historical person whose DNA we do not have - hence they cannot clash with what we accept as laws of nature mediated through science. Such claims go against common experience or common sense but since at least relativity theory and quantum physics, common sense has become itself a dubious criterion of truth: For instance some 150 years ago, common sense would have told you that something can be either a wave or a particle, not both.

(d) Because even the rationally most sophisticated (religious) models of Ultimate Reality, do not take their inspiration out of the air but have to draw from pre- rational, mythical models and narratives. Like even the most scholarly number theorist did not get the concept of a natural number out of the air but had to learn it from counting oranges and apples in pre-school. (ctd)

Oliver (continued),

(e) Why is there only one differentiable structure on a paracompact manifold of dimension less than four but there are several distinct ones on the seven-dimensional sphere? You cannot answer this, even understand what it means, unless you familiarise yourself with non-trivial mathematics, and that cannot be done overnight. The same about the meaning of the belief in God Incarnate (Christ) which you cannot understand unless you familiarise yourself, and accept, the premises of Christian theology. Of course, there is an essential difference: there is only one mathematics but there are many theologies - or what you would call the rationalised foundations of a non-Christian religion - even many versions of Christian theology.

As to your last posting: Neither Dirac nor Einstein were mathematicians. Einstein had to learn and use existing mathematics (Riemannian geometry) to express his new insights in physics, Dirac for the same reason was forced to improvise, to create something new that from the pure mathematcal point of view was very suspicious (c.f. the Dirac function) until Laurent Schwarz came and created the proper mathematics behind it (distribution theory). Your comments on Penrose's triangle of worlds are interesting, and, as I understand them, incorporate a number of non-trivial metaphysical problems. For instance, if you accept the existence of a mathematical world independent of the physical world as well as the human mental world (and pre-existing it) but still needing a kind of mental counterpart, are you not lead to accept a "Supermental World" that exists and existed independent of both the physical and human mental worlds?

Cheers.

"What would we do without hypothetical questions?"

On reading George's contributions I can now at last see the benefit of Oliver's.

He and his mate West really have adopted the role of the cuckoos in Sell's nest. I wish they would just state their case for non-belief and fly away. They are simply not getting what Sells has to say.

Amongst the faithful, of all faiths, there is a wide spectrum of understandings of what our faith is, how we came to it, and how we respond to it in life. This is the rich soil of such discussions as I see it.

Sells: "Christianity becomes privatised, spiritualised and Gnostic. Does this not describe the church of our day?"

Keeping one's belief as a self-satisfied quiet achievement measuring ourselves against a defined list of do's and don'ts; keeping clean. (privatised) .... letting our belief fly high as an aesthete indulging his senses and becoming far removed from the ground with no need to wipe the dust from their feet, as everyone loves her (spiritualised) .. pain in the arse elites who would not know of dust in their realm of belief (Gnostic) ....

Kierkegaard wrote of the inevitable despair of the aesthetes and the ethical, with the latter more likely to have a hard landing. The third classification is the religious with a sub-classification of those who set the agenda in their beliefs - privatised, spiritualised and Gnostic. He writes of the efficacy in the human life in which there is a humble, aware, living faith alive to the God relationship made incarnate, in the body, through Jesus. It is the stuff of dust and grit. Reality marked by drama and peace.

George,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have read Popper. Some kinks but a good benchmark. I have some work related tasks begging attention but will reply.

Popper critiqued Marx, Alder and Freud, for each is prone to constructionism of the confirmations back to instance (first confirmation). Suggest, the Churches are equally guilty. Worse still, the confirmations are made on the interpreations or accounts of third parties.

If memory serves Popper spoke of religionism in terms of the individual vis~a~power. The individual is less power full than God. Inequality. Secularism and rationality are seen in terms of interaction/exchange. Equality. Extending Popper, one might see the Churches usurping the God role for political purposes.

Einstein was a physicist. Known. Dirac, held a degree in mathematics and preceded Hawking at Cambridge.

If one hears a voice from the alleged supernatural saying it is God. It is, or, is not. In either case the listener cannot validate the source. While falsifiability is problematic, either way, one does not know.

More later. Thanks.

Sells,

There is a NT reference to Jesus being a carpenter in Mark. You didn't know this?

Boxbum,

I have said of myself, based on the evidence, one must treat Belief in God, as a [highly] degraded heuristic. There is a minute possibility, but I can't see it. When I ask for non pre-packed answers, I am ignored. So you can'r resolve these issues either.

e.g., Would not the loss of divinity be more of a sacrifice than crucifixion?

e.g., How do you know Moses was communing with God.

e.g., Is there not another (El) generation in the OT godhead.

The above matters are significant, not trivial

Boxgum,

My interest in the past few threads goes back to Sells' questions, "How Does God Exist"? Herein, I felt to immediate focus one the Christian god was the improper course. There are many issues to be resolved first. It was an excellent title with a biased content. One needs to know the architecture of how religions are framed in history and triangulate several disciplines on parent theory [as I was taught for my PhD] before focusing in a dicrete topic. Sells' work "assumes" there is a god and more particularly that that god is someone called, Jesus. He has jumped a zillion steps.

The Jesus thing is not receiving any special attention/approach. Had Homer wrote the Gospel of Paris, claiming the latter was god, and, Socrates, blogged the Athenians, holding Paris "a priori, is a god in a trinity"; I would, say, stand back friend, we have look at manner matters before one can make these claims.

In socio-biology there the terms Kin Altruism and By-Product Mutualism. Cacooned you and Sells seem to have adopted the former, the position on a "Kin", a particular religious reference group.

In the search for knowledge, West and I instead, we, we compare notes, perhaps, Sells can learn from non-relious history. Maybe, there are models in religionism helpful to science. Thus, a twenty-first century amalgalm might be better than either ancient superstitions [Sells] or rigid positivism [Hawking].

In some ways, I prefer an Abelard to a Popper, but, not in everyway. Abelard like Newton really changed the way people think.

Mutualism. Its not shapes or colours. Rather, the multiplication of classes (Piaget), blue squares and red triangles.

Were West and I to fly away, you and Sells (read Kin) can indulge in cross-affirmation, until the cows come home, and beyond.

As I.F.Stone notes, for some, there a penchant towards self rhetoric; and, others, dialogue. Our Greek counterparts lived 2,500 years ago. The insular and the progressive.

Tweat. Tweat.

Hi--

Man, I might have really screwed up. Some of you know that I wrote a novel that has received great reviews, and that author proceeds are donated to prevent child abuse. Well, anyway, I went to this newsgroup to tell them about my novel winning a 2006 ebook competition. The people there started an argument about whether I had the right to tell them about my novel -- they called my post spam. The argument lasted a long time.

Apparently emotions got charged -- not mine, as I was having fun and thought it was all a philosophical debate about what is or isn't spam -- and then some of the newsgroup members who have never read by novel posted insults about me and it on the Mobipocket site. They followed the directions for posting reader book reviews, but instead called me names and pretended that they had read the novel. I could tell that they hadn't because none of the posts included any info except from blurbs that authors had written or the reviews. It has caused a five star rating to drop to three already. I hope they stop.

The insults can be found at:

http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/...p?BookID=30929

The newsgroup is:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...e4535e57ea3554

This could definitely hurt sales. I feel especially bad about my mistake on behalf of the abused kids I work with in my treatment program. Following is an excerpt of my last post which must have really gotten them the most ticked off:

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow

Our myths are to be more than treasured – "Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths", Karl Popper.

Most myths present themselves as authoritative and able to account for facts, no matter how completely at variance they may be with the real world. A myth gains its authority not by proving itself but by presenting itself. Remember too, a myth is a mental model with which people try to interpret reality and respond to it. Myths have value in enabling us to organize the way we perceive facts and see ourselves and the world.

Popper, I believe, is correct when he says, “Rationality as a personal attitude is the attitude of readiness to correct one's beliefs…In its intellectually most highly developed form it is the readiness to discuss one's beliefs critically, and to correct them in the light of critical discussions with other people.”

Western societies have cast aside many of the myths and institutions that had served them for hundreds of years. The great belief systems-the idea of a divine lawgiver; the sanctity of the family kin group, or tribe; the rituals, customs, conventions, ceremonies, and festivals that gave meaning and purpose to the smaller communities of earlier times-are mostly in ruins. But in the haste to throw off apparently outmoded burdens, people also lost the valuable side of those myths and institutions. Due to a lack of rationale (the second and important part of the Popper equation), people are left with nothing but the despair engendered by new myths that they do not understand.

The dogmatists, who can no longer speak in the language of myth, align with the following, "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.", Andre Gide

"Western societies have cast aside many of the myths ... but in the haste to throw off apparently outmoded burdens, people also lost the valuable side of those myths and institutions."

relda, this reminds me of an old joke about the missionary and cannibals: He lived among them, and they found him useful, because he could forecast rain. Until somebody found out, that these abilities were due to his rheumatic leg. So they killed the missionary, ate him, and hung the leg in the window as a barometer. Are we, western moderns, not doing with religion and the for us acceptable offshoots of it, what the cannibals did with the missionary and his leg?

Yes George, I believe we do - in our ignorance.

The striking silliness about Peter's article is his need to point out that this particular Jesus was a wholly, living breathing, thinking and functioning body in the flesh. Surely it is funny peculiar to think otherwise but how one can then continue to explain "this bodily nature of his ascension" to be with teddy, his father, ... which is funny ha ha. To then say this particular Jesus will appear again as a "real coming in the flesh" is a scream ...... i.e. a superstitious screaming spasm of psychosis.

Whilst people may argue the physicality of all this Jesus magic, what is the teddy (god) message of this belief? i.e. ..... teddy invents pain....teddy invents humans who feel pain..... teddy sends to earth his possession, his only son who happens to be a human son (.... forget poor Joseph). He then gets nailed to a cross for a few hours. Whilst human son feels pain, does his father, teddy? Moral of the story ..... Teddy as a father owns his son as merely an instrument product to satisfy a sadomasochist mindset.

Is this everyone’s idea of how a responsible teddy should behave? More importantly, is this everyone's idea of how a responsible father should behave?

ps Does anyone know what this Jesus did and the formative influences on his life during his "wilderness years" (13 to 30)? Ridiculous isn't it? .... all the hoo haa of the baby Jesus in a manger and nobody has any idea of what he was up to for the greater part of his life.

Keiran's posting makes me want to repeat a comment I already made here some three months ago: You cannot have a serious debate about (science and) religion, reason and faith, if you insist on airing your most intimate religious, (or rather anti-religious) hang-ups. The same as you cannot have a serious debate about the man-woman relationship (biological, psychological or social) if you insist on airing your most intimate sexual hang-ups. There are namely two intimacies in the psychological make-up of a human being: a horizontal, sexual one, concerned with a partner (real or virtual, accepted or denied), and a vertical, religious one, concerned with a Creator (real or virtual, accepted or denied).

Kieran,
In your ‘hang-up’ you describe a deep-seated “teddy” or comfort factor prevalent, not only in such notable form found within Christianity but also, with subtlety, as expressed (sometimes poetically) by us ‘moderns’ - our wonder, despair, joy and sorrow have not been totally lost. The thoughts of ancient man, however, created great comfort through the myths of the ‘dying-and-rising god’ - this motif of concern with life and death became dominant. The myths, from Egypt, Phoenicia, Sumeria, Babylon and Canaan, show some significance.

Closely associated with ancient myths were elaborate customs and ceremonies - ritual evolved over a long period of time. Man danced and acted out what he believed to be his proper response to the living world, which contained him. The Egyptian myth Osiris is likened in one place to the seed which must be placed in the ground to die so that the new growth may shoot forth; and at the same time he is thought of as rising in the form of his son Horus who thus avenges the death of Osiris.

A myth probably having greatest influence upon the ancient people of Israel is that of Baal and Anat. This was a seasonal myth describing the death and resurrection of the vegetation god. The myth is not tied to an annual cycle and is much more concerned with the threat of periods of drought and the way to ensure the supply of the life-giving water on which men, animals and all vegetation alike depend. Consequently, when the death and rebirth of the vegetation was being described in a personal way, in the manner of myth, the same themes persisted.

In this quite striking way the ancient myths did full justice to the reality and finality of death on the one hand and to the mystery, on the other hand, of how death gave rise to new life. So, for a continued belief in a bodily Resurrection? Perhaps best summed up by a Christian ‘prophet’ (and theologian), of recent origin: “There are very few theologians today who believe the Resurrection actually happened.” - Reinhold Niebuhr

relda,
this is a well known but very powerful "comfort factor" you are offering Kieran and others who have problems with religious models of Reality. It should help them overcome their existential anxiety reflected in Kieran's posting. Of course, you are right, Christians (and adherents of other religious world views) have their own "comfort factors", that, if needed, help them overcome their existential anxiety. Some are based on the bible and speculations thereon, some on historical facts and anthropological factors like the ones you refer to, and some on interpretations of 21st century science and suitable metaphysics that goes with them (my favourite).

Relda and George,

With myth, storytelling and spirituality, should we regard these entities, as Ends of more fundamental processes? Herein, if we understand those processes, science can find new horizons and life enriched. Look at the object, not the reflection.

Regards.

Boxgum,

We must go away? Burnt at the stake? Despite your heartfelt animosity; being a true humanist, I still hold you and Sells in "unconditional positive regard" regard, even you think too narrowly. Moreover, West and I, we seek dialogue, not self-rhetoric.

All-along, starting with the "How Does God Exist?" thread [The Architecture of God], religionists have been coaxed to consider a revised research programme, more suited to a forum and not a closed reference group. Reasonable? Addressing Sells’ question requires, we don't START with Jesus. We need to work through many ANTECEDENT matters, first. Reasonable?

Martin [from another thread], did fly away, after it was shown “his” question, seemingly from a Christian theology paper, could be readily answered substituting Aten and historical Egypt.

As George [A Christian] notes, as West notes, as I note, Christian theocrasia is bedded in myth. This should place the OT into review-mode regarding OT-NT continuity on matters like, El. Moreover, Mythras and Dionysuis and Christrian have very similar brushstokes. These are not small matters of knowledge.

Lakatos states, words to the effect; we are born into a world of pre-existing knowledge. We should spend our lives questioning it. Herein, the modern secularist listens to divergent opinions. Contrarily, many modern Christians seems too closed to look at alternatives to Jesus. Inquiry becomes arrested. Centripedal forces overwhelm centrifugal forces, knowledge becomes, stale, self-confirmatory and affixed. It’s Sells World!

Instead, any “tentative” belief in Jesus or Cheese should rigorously tested. [The latter with a good port.] This requires a complementary, degraded research programme: e.g., trying to show against conviction, the person of Jesus castes a VERY SIMILAR social constructionist shadow as other gods, potentially helps us to realign preconceived knowledge. [Finding a 15 billion year old star in 13.7 billion year old universe creates like problems.]. Likewise, the atheist should have a shadow (degraded) research programme

Oliver,
We are the reflection and, for the purpose of this discussion, 'God' is the object.

"I am reminded of how useful imaginary numbers are in mathematics. Everyone knows that there can be no such number as the root of minus one. But this gives rise to the idea of imaginary numbers that are very useful. Could it be that the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ is similar?"

To me Jesus' resurrection metaphor serves 2 purposes:

1. the transmission of understanding of Jesus' logic - of how why he felt it necessary to resist violence with non-violence. Within his cultural milieu, this was, at that time, a unique concept/understanding for him to have had. Jesus believed that pacifism was the highest human state in human relations. When this is understood by others then the consciousness of Christ is metaphorically speaking, resurrected in others - but only when truly understood and adhered to - hence the practice of the Romans throwing Christians to the lions to test their faith.

The resurrection metaphor was a vehicle whose purpose was to initiate/awaken in others the idea that the only way to truly overturn such oppression of other people (free the downtrodden) - as practiced both by the Romans and the unforgiving, domineering Sanhedrin in, was to resist the bullies peacefully - even unto one's own death if necessary.

2. It is also a pointer to the concept of reincarnation (which is believed in a number of other faiths - Buddhism most notably). Jesus makes several references to reincarnation himself.

Without the concept of reincarnation, there is no logic to Jesus' teachings or example. However, if he was right and we do all reincarnate, then, unless we stem the violent nature in man, we will continue to be reborn into an increasingly violent world. History bears this out. However, his vision was, if we could all reach a point where more people say no to violence and are prepared to die without retaliating (like he did), eventually there will be a paradigm shift - more pacifists than killers - eventually leading to a world where no one kills - ever and eventually:

"the peacemakers will inherit the earth."

relda, how can we have something hang up? In my case I may have a few hang downs and without much associated anxiety a good few natural get ups ....... must be the olive leaf tea that I make and drink copiously.

George are you saying don't think negative thoughts because you might cause bad things to happen or don't offer critical thoughts and probing questions for fear of limiting debate? If this is the case it is because belief is difficult but belief in belief for its own sake is easy as you seem inclined to point out. Many people cannot or will not distinguish the difference. e.g. In the US of A almost half the population believe the universe was created some 6,000 years ago and almost the same percent believe that this Jesus bod will probably return within the next fifty years. Isn't it remarkable how many people in a community will be happier to accept someone who never thinks but declares he be-LIE-ves which is where we find the great disconnect, ........... the entirely maladaptive.

Why not question and communicate intimate details where we find them and in the process recapture spirituality to the domain of human reason ............ for isn't it reasonable that intimacies cannot exist in isolation. It is so reasonable to pay close attention to one's moment-to-moment conscious experiences where I might add that it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish. We can then debate everything from the intimacies of Warnie's leg spin to the intimacy and charming life syle of a one-celled parasite called Trichomonas which sticks its tendrils into the wall of a vagina or urethra.

Oliver,
I do not remember having said that Christian theocrasia (whatever that means) is bedded in myth, but yes I accept that belief in God is bedded in myth if you accept that mathematics is bedded in your five fingers: You had to use them in order to arrive at the idea of a number, similarly humanity had to work itself through pre-rational (not necessarily irrational) myths before it arrived at a sophisticated notion of God (the Christian way led through Israel and Jesus).

When you say "Look at the object, not the reflection" and you mean by object the Transcendental reality, briefly God, and by reflection "myth, storytelling and spirituality" then I agree. These, as well as rationalised theology are the pointers (rather than reflection) to a Reality that we cannot grasp directly. Not unlike the situation in physics after Newton and Einstein: the only way to grasp the physical reality of space-time and elementary particles is through very unintuitive mathematical models of them. The jury is still out on which one of these theories is the most suitable - explaining as much as possible and agreeing with experiment as much as possible - but what we shall understand will still not be the material world as such only our mathemathized theory, or theories, of it.

It is true that many Christians (or Buddhists or Muslims or atheists etc.) are too closed to look at alternatives of their beliefs, but how can you tell them from those who looked and did not find sufficient reasons to convert? I do not understand why you should "test" a belief that is part of your faith which by definition means that it is untestable. Except in your afterlife - if there is such - but the result of that "test" you will not be able to communicate to anybody living. (ctd)

(continued)
relda,
There are applied theologians, who are mostly concerned with the application of Christian tenets, like there are applied mathematicians who are mostly concerned with applications of (pure) mathematics. Applied mathematicians need many conceptual shortcuts to be able to quickly and effectively use selected parts from the richness of maths. Similarly applied theologians, and Reinhold Niebuhr was one of them (c.f. also K£vin's recent posting). But even he agrees that the Christain position is much more complicated than it might appear to an outsider who wants to separate religious beliefs from faith: "... the final expressioin of hope in the Apostolic Creed 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting' is a much more sophisticated expression of hope in ultimate fulfilment than all of its modern substitutes. It grows out of a realization of the total human situation which the modern mind has not fathomed. The symbols by which this hope is expressed are, to be sure, difficult. [Beyond Tragedy, Charles Scribner's Sons 1937, p. 306]. Well, to put it bluntly, if you mean that no TV camera would have captured the act of resurrection to be seen by all atheists, then I suppose I should agree. However, there is much more to it: a belief in Christ's resurrections is indeed pointless and futile if taken outside the faith that it is part of.

Keiran,
Your recent posting is certainly different in tone from the one I felt I had to react to the way I did. I am afraid these too posting of mine are all I am allowed, so you'll have to wait another 24 hours before I can reply.

Hello George,

1. THEOCRASIA

"Because even the rationally most sophisticated (religious) models of Ultimate Reality, do not take their inspiration out of the air but have to draw from pre-rational, mythical models and narratives."

Particularly the last part of our your sentance referes to theocrasis. Through borrowing and melding relions meld: Amun-Ra (one god), Amun and Ra were originally separtae gods. Christ, Mythas and Dionisius as what objective researchers call "ancient mystery religions: Here, think about three Venn diagrams with large parts of each of the three areas intersecting. The gods shall the same characterics in theorcrasia. Squares and cubes, srtaignt lines and angles,and, circles and spheres have curved lines in space-3; Likewise, one can cluster religions from sets of characteristcis, say share/not share the same creation story, the god did/dont ot became man, virgin birth etc. Metaphorically, what Sells appears to say is that squares are the only figures with straight lines cannot be lumped to gether many other shapes with. If one knoes a little history it plain the (NT) Christian faith shares so much with, 300 BCE to 100 CE Mystery cults, it is hard from an abobject stance to not put it the same bucket as the others.

2. GODHEADS

The explicit OT that was a Counsel of El with a different godhead than the (interpreseted) NT.

3. WHEN I READ THE BIBLE

When I read the Bible there are different gods:

- Abraham
- Moses
- Jesus (historical)
- Jesus (Pauline)
- Jesus (Other makeovers)

Yahweh was a tribal member of the Council of El. He has a "father". Yet Yahweh, "god the father" if the feld of the godhead, in the IT. Theorcrasia is, fro god, like playing LEGO. Same blocks different configurations. Some times evolutionary (OT-NT). Political a Pharoah of the upper AND lower Eygpt...

George,
“..a belief in Christ's resurrection is indeed pointless and futile if taken outside the faith that it is part of.” Which is why any of the biblical miracle stories point to something well beyond mere empiricism – ‘proof’ becomes a pointless exercise outside of the faith. Jesus did not ‘appear’ to Pontius Pilate, nor to any of the Jewish High Priests - he was apparent only to ‘believers’ – which is not to suggest mass delusion nor delusional thinking (although there can be a fine line drawn here).

As Niebuhr said, "Religions grow out of the real experience in which tragedy mingles with beauty and man learns that the moral values which dignify his life are embattled in his own soul and imperilled in the world." As the one who wrote the famous serenity prayer (as adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous) he also demonstrated an ability to communicate religion to the secular.

"Civilization depends upon the vigorous pursuit of the highest values by people who are intelligent enough to know that their values are qualified by their interests and corrupted by their prejudices.” – even if insufficient to reveal his depth of thought, Niebhur extends a common thread for atheist and believer alike.

Undoubtedly, Niebuhr had his critics but his paradoxical reasoning about the world, God, and human nature made him hard to classify ideologically. His constantly interpreting phrases of Jesus, such as "You have to lose in order to gain" or, "You have to give things up in order to get things" gave him similar irony and paradox. His words still reverberate today. His belief translated into social and political action. His strong conviction was, as he matured, " that a realist conception of human nature should not be made into a bastion of conservatism, particularly a conservatism which defends unjust privileges" - here faith and social responsibility are shown to integrate (not wholly secular, nor wholly religious)...
Cont’d…

Cont’d…
The faith, as expressed by Niebuhr, led to both that of a peacemaker and defender of the weak or defenceless. He identified for many years as a pacifist then vigorously argued for American engagement in World War II. He became a staunch cold warrior, but he rejected the war in Vietnam as an extension of that conflict.

Niebuhr innovated the term "Christian Realism," a middle way between idealism and arrogance – a stance, whether wittingly or not, many of us take. On reflection, I really don’t think we’re all that far apart. A genuine article of ‘faith’ tends to unite rather than divide, transcending any level of ‘comfort’ we desire.

Keiran,
Of course, you can offer critical thoughts in a debate. However, a debate is meaningful only if (a) the participants agree on the meaning (definition) of the crucial terms used, and/or (b) those who are not sure about these terms ask those who are knowledgeable (preferably with diverse opinions) without being emotional or even offensive. Offensively formulated questions should not be asked, emotionally loaded ones (that e.g. communicate "intimate details") belong more to a therapy session than to a matter-of-fact debate. I do not know what a Trichomonas is, but if I wanted to know I would have asked you and would not get emotional just because it happens to remind me of something unpleasant in my life (which is not likely to happen with a Trichomonas, but happens often with terms associated with religious faith).

The main topic of Peter's article was the bodily resurrection of Christ. That can be debated by pious believers, who have a common understanding, albeit mostly rather naive, of what it means. Or by theologians, who can quarrel about what it actually means (and they do, as relda pointed out). For the rest of us it is either meaningless or we have to accept an explanation by a specialist. An illustration: Some time ago I read a Letter to the Editor in an Australian newspaper where the writer was getting outraged about how taxpayers' money was being wasted: his niece, a PhD student in pure mathematics, studied knots, and when asked, whether she meant knots like the sailors use, she said yes. Well, knot theory is a part of mathematics that you need to be at graduate level to understand properly what it is, and what are its applications e.g. in genetics (DNA strands), but yes, for a layman the best way to explain this is to refer to sailors' knots. A mathematician, or somebody who accepted a mathematician's explanation on authority, could have calmed the outraged taxpayer. (ctd)

(continued)
Nobody speaks about "belief in belief for its own sake", but it is true, that belief - acceptance of some experimentally untestable statements about outer reality - is hard to consent to without a prior faith or at least the fiducia part of it (Paul Tillich). You see, the English language has this distinction between belief and faith which e.g. the German language does not have, causing some problems when translating texts about religion or philosophy of religion between these two languages.

Yes, there are many silly people in the USA (and elsewhere), religious or not, with naive ideas about what religion is, as there are many people who have rather naive ideas about mathematics (and consequently about what the latest (cosmological) speculations about our material world could mean). This only implies that the meaning of Christianity/mathematics should be preached/taught better, not that these as such are useless or even harmful vehicles of our contacts with the outer reality. Anyhow, thank you Keiran for this opportunity to better formulate my thoughts.

More to the resurrection was that prior to his crucifixion Jesus and the apostles at the last supper dined on Jesus body and drank Jesus blood.
Now Jesus wasn't a big fellow and 13 men can do a lot of damage when they're feasting for the Passover which last 7 or 8 days, depending on ones religious inclination. I think it was Matthew that commented on the tenderness of the "lamb". Kind of highlights the the centrality of the body in Christian theology. No rare event considering that even today they're at it come a Sunday. Christianity. A consuming faith. Pass the blood. I mean the wine dear. God isn't just the trinity. He's a nice light snack.

TWO UN-CHRISTIAN CHRISTIANS

Sells and Boxgum,

Two self-supposed still Christians wont present God’s case to “unclean” dissenters. Herein, Jesus -divine god or historical man- would surely chide you.

Unwilling to discuss: theocrasia, the divinity of Jesus, anomalies between the OT-NT, the ontological argument, sacrifice, or Paul [interventions] or Mark [carpenter]. These are valid topics. A priori pre-supposition, ontologies regarding perfection and comparative religions are also reasonable matters for discourse.

West and I have tried “Dialogue” on many key matters… No good. You know only Rhetoric. Your autistic mindset arrests any encounter with real world knowledge.

On CNN, a non-theist theology professor was asked, why do Christian and Islamic fanatics commit evil? His reply was, many faiths fear the consequences of an afterlife, more than living transient good/civil lives on Earth: i.e., Hate now, be saved later. [Kill the infidels, burn the witches.]

Enthusiastically you have slammed the door on me [and inquiry]. But wouldn’t it be ironic, if, your haughty, puffed-up attitudes denied YOU salvation [if it exists]. I would not defend your salvation, if could. You don’t deserve it, damnation. It would be poetic justice, methinks.

Confronting divine judgement, I would face my [supposed] Maker as “a doubting [questioning] Thomas”, not [you] a hypocrite to Christianity, embracing only a closed Christian enclave, avoiding detestable others. The historical Jesus didn’t like exclusivity and detachment from sinners [unclean.].

-Let First be Last. The Last, First. - You best hope it doesn’t work that way, Pharisee Sells and Pharisee Boxbum.

In the past three threads, you have NOT defended God. You have NOT engaged the tax collectors and prostitutes [metaphorically]. You are Christians by self-proclamation only. Non-Christians in fact. You know the “words”, but not the mission of your own religion. Pitiful bedfellows.

/mor

/Cont….

-- This will be my last post to you--

Sells, you can come out of the closet, now. Vilify me to your heart’s content. That is the coward’s way. Rewrite the truth in Your [Divine-Self] own sanctimonious image.

Sells, calling yourself a Deacon makes my [touch-in-cheek] blasphemies pale in comparison. Even, if there is God, you are not a priest. You seek celebrity and followership , not God:

- Closed not Missionary.
- Shallow not humble.
- Repelling not welcoming.
- Cold not warm. A genius unto yourself and those you con.
- Skeptic to knowledge.
- Living a lie
- An Anti-priest?

Right or wrong: At least, West and I have the integrity to encounter dialogue. We were never opponents. We are not the sceptics. Your are: A sceptic to knowledge. You hate debate. I feel your enmity and the arrogance of a two-bob priest.

- Yes, I hope the First is Last - A hundred Bibles might drown you your sea of self-righteousness - tough.

aqvarivs,
thank you for presenting a good example of what I meant by "offensive language" in my previous posting.
Oliver,
are you sure this is the right place to seek help with your problems concerning religious faith? And if you think a rational debate could help you, is "playing the man (Sells), not the ball" the right way to go about it?

George, it is interesting that you should mention knot theory and I can well understand a mathematician's curiosity and need to find. A few years back, I found myself playing with a computer program called knots that by entering parameters created incredibly intricate and beautiful knot structures. It is not difficult to relate knot theory to the intricate lacework we find in celtic fibre, graphic and sculptural art, illuminated manuscripts, islamic ceramic tile and carved panels, etc ...... to the double helix and recently to string theory. The outraged taxpayer whilst not informed expresses an opinion but more seriously here there is this need to not be curious and that's where we find the great disconnect, ........... the entirely maladaptive.

Contributions that I have put forward to the best of my ability emphasise an open inclusive environment as opposed to a closed exclusive system because it's not hard to see all forms of global influences challenging once held exclusivities and closed systems. From what I've seen of art and science there is a need to shift from closed systems to inclusive world views and broader environments including the infinite environment. We don't need to believe that with the advent of consciousness, we can now step outside evolution, go under it, rise above it, or stop it.... all our actions are evolutionary. We are all artists, we are all scientists and we are all philosophers where we sometimes should start with our best information by trying to forget about the philosophical history of a problem and then just remind ourselves of what we know for a fact and ask probing questions to verify.

If we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, we have to believe in reason. Now with the internet we see it is communications many to many. I find this truly significant because it is a meeting place, it is interactive, democratic with a deeper realism and our new enlightenment where the word is not with a teddy (god) but with people who wish to unravel some exclusive knots.

George

Love your defensiveness. Do you think you'll ever sum up the courage to pull it all the way out?

Go back and read my post again. This time try to get past my sense of humour and acknowledge the unspoken question. It's very germane to Sells article.

It isn't the question of the resurrection. Thats just one more example of "Gods power". It's the idea of the necessity of early Christianity to have an example of consuming "the body". An act played out each Sunday. Easter comes but once a year.

The idea of a "society" sitting down to dine on Gods body and to drink Gods blood. How completely pagan. I love it. I always thought it a shame that there was no dance to go along with it.

Keiran,
Firstly, I think your example of knots in "celtic fibre,... islamic ceramic tile" would not have convinced the outraged taxpayer about the usefulness of knot theory (topological classification of embeddings of the real line in the Euclidean space) any more than the reference to the sailor's knot. Yes, he has the right to express his opinion, so has the fundamentalist with very naive ideas about science, or the atheist with very naive ideas about religious symbols. Otherwise, I agree with everything you wrote about the need to communicate, except for the need of a "teddy" that you seem to think only religious people have. Many Christians (though not all) base their beliefs on reason (philosophy, not necessarily that of science) and so do many atheists. However, not all (in both cases), and even those who do may sometimes need a comfort factor - like an emotionally loaded posting - to support their preconceived ideas. That is understandable but should not be confused with an expressed opinion that can be rationally analysed.

There are three ways in which I can try to communicate, say, a mathematical idea: (a) to a fellow mathematician "at the same eye level", (b) trying to explain to a layman a particular mathematical concept, (c) listening to somebody's emotional outbursts about how mathematicians know nothing about real life, how his/her teacher could not explain anything to him/her, how boring and against common sense mathematics is etc. The last example, of course, is not a communication of an opinion only of mental dispositions. I have encountered in my life all these three kinds of communication when the symbols in question were either mathematical or religious.

George,

Greetings…

With Sells, I was not adopting Argumentum ad Hominem in that I was directing thrust against “The Man”, to prove an argument. My emphasis was on he, himself, the poor priest and the weak author.

George, had you been with us for the past three threads, you would have observed, debate is stifled, because Sells argues from self-righteous authority and wont address the real issues, he taunts.

“How does God exist?”, should consider the Axial Age and Alexandrian “God Factories” ( H.G. Wells). What sort of theologian is this Sells? ...What if a cartographer claims the Earth is flat in an article, “How is the Earth shaped?”. Someone shows the author a picture of “Blue Planet steeped in its dream” , from space, and relates the stories of pilots and passages... Even gives the author a plane ticket. Then, the silence descends. He “moves on” as THE “authority” on the next topic.

“The Moving Finger writes, and having writ, moves on: nor all thy Piety or Wit, shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a Word of it” - Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

We then go through the cycle again.



“Theocrasia”

George, theocrasia, reviews how religions evolve over time and tend to meld [ Amun-ra: Amun+Ra]and/or adopt borrowings.

-Q- Why is the Christian god and other gods (e.g., Mithras) seemingly built from the same LEGO blocks, from the 300 BCE to 100 CE? You commented on this matter in your own words. [That is why cited you.].

Also, FYI:

http://www.bartleby.com/86/36.html

Just found the above site. I have a ‘40s edition of the Wells’ book, wherein, Alexandria takes centre stage. Feel Wells does a far, far better job than Sells in outlining, “How Does God Exists?”, for forum discussion. I don’t expect Sells to match one of the World’s best writers; but, he could progress the Wellian parameters regarding the Architecture of How Gods are Created. A contemporary historian like McNeill would not flinch at Wells’ histories. One could call-in anthropology to support Wells too.

[cont… before I leave]

aqvarivs,
You remind me of the old lady who was ridiculing silly math teachers sitting down with high school students and telling them some nonsense about "a plus be square", when everybody knows that you cannot add letters only numbers! Well, the old lady would be well advised to just ignore high school algebra if she cannot understand algebra and it just upsets her. I think you should do the same with religious symbols.

Also, if you do not understand the word "offensive", instead of picking on the Eucharist try to caricature Mohammed (ask the Danish cartoonists how to do it efficiently) or try to ridicule publicly some group of people because of their looks, race, sexual orientation etc. You will, see that the reaction you get might be very different from that of a Catholic who will probably just pray for you. Perhaps then you will understand.

Oliver,
I suppose I must mostly agree with you. However, I do not think Sells' article was about cultural anthropology, and neither were my postings. Compare: What I have just written has nothing to do with the hardware (and internet connection) I am using although I could not communicate with you without them. And, of course, I would have to agree with everything a computer technician would tell me about my iMac. The same as I have to accept what anthropologists tell me about how people came to such abstract ideas as we have today in mathematics or theology.

Georgie. Very glad you have found a way to pigeon hole me. Much better to find my humour to be ridicule. That way a genius such as yourself doesn't have to lower himself. Or actually attend to the question presented. You see Georgie I've been a Roman Catholic since birth and after 50 years if I find the nature of Christianity to hold quite a bit of paganism. So be it. It's not like I've lived in a vacuum or a thoughtless life. If you would like to argue that perception try to be a man about it and not go off in a huff.
And do boy, try to attain a sense of humour. It's a good thing.

The centrality of the body in Christian theology.
It isn't the question of the resurrection. That's just one more example of "Gods power". It's the idea of the necessity of early Christianity to have an example of consuming "the body". An act played out each Sunday. Easter comes but once a year.

Relda,

Good luck with finding the underpinnings of “spirituality”. I think QM and Phase Space might help pay for a ticket to a wider approach to Science. After 150 years of tight muscles, it will take Science a decade or two limber-up.

Jesus’ tricky little anecdotes [chreiai], have Attic Greek origins [not Bible School Koine]. Perhaps, the good Pastor Niebuhr didn’t know how these anecdotes work [?]. I think I would have liked Karl [not a Sells]. He was really involved in liberal beliefs.

[Roman historians sometimes took Attic Greek satire in Greek poems and plays as literal history. Until recently false Greek histories
were accepted, because of these mistaken Roman source (to us) writers.]

Still see any crucifixion in terms of human martyrdom. Far short of detachment [divine sacrifice] from a godhead. The real question is,” how would God forgive sin?”. Sacrifice yes/no? [yes, reeks of primitivism to me] BUT, if sacrifice; I posit, the loss of divinity is supreme. Making Jesus divine does not fit the bill. Also, the dividend rwould have universal not particular salvation. God doesn’t say, “I’ll ‘av a' ‘alf”.

Know you are a guy. My wrong profile of you was female, 62, studied Humanities at the University of Melbourne.

Aqvarivs,

It is unlikely Pilate would have crucified someone on Passover. Maybe, if a Jew killed a Roman? Passing The Body/Blood was an affront to the Romans. It symbolised cannibalism.

The Blood thing may have roots in blood sacrifice (OT) and Mithraism (blood of sacred bull). Friend, think about with millions on tonnes of bread and millions of litres of wines served over the past two millennia. The (one) Body/Blood of Christ has been “recycled” many thousands of times. Think about it.

Oliver,
In riposte to a challenge, I ask, in similar fashion of the Greek polemic, "Are any left that still adore Juno's divinity?" Is this "to throw odium on the person to whom it is addressed" or "to embarrass an opponent and to deprive him of the power of feigning ignorance of our meaning" or to provoke "indignation”?

“Jesus’ tricky little anecdotes [chreiai], have Attic Greek origins [not Bible School Koine].” Quite true, for at the heart of Greek Philosophy were two fundamental assumptions: that an inner meaning lies hidden behind all external phenomena, and that love for a sensual and temporal object is capable of gradual metamorphosis into love for the invisible and eternal.

As with Jesus, Niebuhr can be depicted as someone who expertly plays the game and wields his weapons as well as or better than his opponents. The native informant distinguishes seemingly neutral questions seeking information from aggressive ones, that is, those which "desire to prove something" either in attack or defence of something. The responsive chreia, with attention to the question asked which prompts the sage to answer, often answering a question with a question – a response encompassing the paradox of our own dilemma.

For the ancients, the chreia embraced the advisory, judicial, and the celebratory. A system of education persisted largely unchanged century after century despite the rise of Rome and later of Christianity and ended only with the rise of industrialism, with its need of scientists and engineers more than literate and rhetorically trained leaders. Almost lost is the 'Socratic' method of censure and protreptic with its goal to transform the student, to point out error and to cure it.

As said to Epictitus , “Convince me that logic is necessary”, to which he replied, “Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?” A reply in the affirmative issued Epictitus's reply, “How, then, will you know if I impose upon you... Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?”

Oliver

I thought it might even go back further. To the warrior/hunter eating the heart of his enemy/kill to take in his enemies/kills strengths or nature.

The Holy Eucharist is taught to be the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ (this doctrine is referred to as transubstantiation). The actual transformation of bread and wine occurs at the priest's words, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." At that point, the accidents of bread and wine remain, i.e., it would appear to all senses that these continue to exist, while the substance has been entirely altered, a position succinctly summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas's hymn, "Adoro Te Devote"

It is one of the Seven Sacraments, referred to as the Blessed Sacrament, and consequently bestows grace upon the recipient and removes venial sin.

Eat the heart of a lion. Be a lion. Return to the tribe as the lion with in the tribe. A valuable hunter. A brave warrior.

King Richard the Lion heart.

We may pretend to be above such notions, and argue the finer points of meaning or intent but, it's hard to deny the associations with our past. I am willing to accept my beginnings as well as my present with out any feeling of shame or superiority.

I have been in such situations as a man and a warrior that eating my enemies heart could have been a possibility. That I didn't was more to my life experience and custom nothing more.

Well, aqvarivs, we obviously disagree on what is humour, what ridicule (and sarcasm), what offensive language, and what a rational debate about the topic or merits of Sells' article. So if you want to continue on this level - looking for feedbacks for your frustration with (Catholic) religious symbols - you will have to stick to people who share your understanding of these terms. Sorry for having got involved.

Roman Catholic please George. Lets not defame a church now in our huff of impotence. Proper names please. And George you haven't got involved. You pounced on my posts to illustrate your personal bias and ill humour but, stayed from engaging in conversation. I have kept my humour and reiterated my (provocative) thought.

I too am sorry for the manner in which you have chosen to engage here on online opinion. However I'm not about to take any abuse. Snide, childish, ill tempered or otherwise.

lyrics from Nina Simone's Sinner Man

Oh, sinner man, where you gonna run to all on that day?
Run to the sun, "Sun won't you hide me all on that day?"
Lord says, "Sinner man, the sun'll be a freezin' all on that day!"
Run, run, "Lord won't you hide me all on that day?"
Lord says "Sinner man, you should've been a praying all on that day."

Peter in his article says "I am reminded of how useful imaginary numbers are in mathematics. Everyone knows that there can be no such number as the root of minus one. But this gives rise to the idea of imaginary numbers that are very useful. Could it be that the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ is similar? While we all know that the event is impossible, we must cling to the concept in order to save our theology from distortion."

I just love this quote because we as humans have a propensity for this kind of mindset. Whilst some may say the root of minus one is a useful imaginary number wouldn't it be better described as a fictional expression because it cannot be a number and nor can it be imagined as such. Perhaps its usefulness and use will only point out what cannot be. A better use of imagination and certainly not being strictly utilitarian, is to apply this faculty to what can be possible rather than what will always be a fiction. Mathematician, George, may like to assist.

I'm sure its possible to similarly regard the idea of nothingness as just that, an idea. We would then see that no part of the universe could be devoid of matter with the best idea that nonexistence is impossible and indeed that we live in an infinite universe.

If the idea of nothingness is a fiction then its use in such a cosmological system as the "big bang" theory describes, is also a fiction or even better, a delusion. i.e. When you look at the vast expanse of endless galaxies how can anyone believe that it all came from NOTHING even if you want to believe that there is such a real idea as nothingness?

Keiran,
Let me repeat: There is nothing imaginary about imaginary numbers, there is nothing irrational about irrational numbers, and zero as a number as good as any other number (and not a Devil's invention as they thought in the Middle Ages). More precisely, all of mathematics is "imaginary" in the sense that it is a mental construction. Not only complex numbers, which a high school students learns to grasp, but e.g. also the number three is a mental construction (unlike what our senses experience as three particular apples), an abstraction which a small child has to learn to grasp. However, these mental constructions are "unreasonably effective" (Eugene Wigner) in the sense that they can be used to construct mathematical models for cognitive purposes -- not to confuse with mathematical models for practical purposes as used e.g. by engineers -- as essential (quantifiable) constituents of physical theories describing (material) reality. Their effectiveness lies in their ability to make experimentally verifiable predictions.

Religion, more precisely its rationalised backbone called theology in our western tradition, gives rise to religious models of a Reality that transcends material reality. Of course, this does not make sense if you do not accept a Reality transcending the material one (that in principle can be modelled by mathematics without any prior religious faith). There are many such models, even within one religious tradition (e.g. within Christianity). (ctd)

(cintinued)
However, there are two differences:

(1) Predictions in the case of religious models are not experimentally verifiable (unless you are a mystic or believe in a verification in after-life).

(2) The contemporary model of an atom supersedes the model of an atom as a tiny planetary system, and this in turn supersedes the model of an atom as a tiny ball. This case of clear ordering -- from the more naive to the more sophisticated that is closer to truth (whatever that means) -- accepted, at least implicitly, by all scientists, you do not have with religious models. All religious people believe in the existence of some Transcendental reality (and the mystics think they have a direct "sensual" access to it) but they differ in believing which model comes closest to this Reality.

This is where Faith -- and psychological/cultural adherence to a particular tradition --enters into the equation.

George,

Testing "religiosity" in the Popperian sense is difficult. However, accreditative statements are possible, regarding doubt.

Worshippers become a-critical in the absence of evidence. What can follow is a two-step dance, between, faith and "tacit hesitancy" (Polnanyi). Herein, the Believer states, “Faith embraces itself and doubt about itself” (Tillich). Christianity, for example, requires, sin, doubt and anguish. Else, there is no platform for separation, empowerment and worship. Without these, Christians essentially vanish.

The Believer’s comment that god [Jesus, Mithras, Zeus, whomever] exists is a-critical and isn’t fully dubitable. The impulse towards pursuit rests not with proper enquiry nor test. Instead, religious enquiry is a feigned enquiry, which involves “indwelling” (Polanyi) in the experience. Herein, there exists a credo, in lieu of objective examination.

Self-confirming declarations, as theological assertions, bind the parameters of worship. Here, the objective is; to emotionally endorse worship; rather, than forensically examine a god or a religion: One steps out of heuristics based on the discernable, to search for a god, via worship. The line between true and false is blurred by passions, declarative self-affirming interrelationships and unfalsifiable Popper)theological assertions.

In religious service, the primary goal of a church is not to convey information and debate content. The priest presides “over” the sermon to accentuate the credo. Church/Mass does not objectivity study “Religion” [as might a forensic anthropologist who maintains her distance the object of study.]. Instead, the priest guised in self-delusion, primes cravings for divine presence; while, quashing critical enquiry. Thus, indoctrinating --literally reinforcing [Skinner] doctrine-- ; while, shielding congregations from alternative perspectives. Thus, making the believer feel, righteous, correct and safe from dissenting thoughts.

Sells, is a perfect example. “Christian” Credo wont allow him to consider the architecture of godheads, via the objective lens of scientific and histographical knowledge focused on theocrasia. Even though one “possible” outcome might be a more catholic understanding of any God-Man existant relationship. His credo denies wider exploration of his god, or, any gods, not only stark atheist posits. Ultimately, Sells and Kin are bound by Cult Credo, ahead of Faith.

Oliver,
If I understood you properly, much of what you are saying agrees with the way I see things, more precisely with the way I imagine a "religious outsider" would see faith.

You see, I prefer to view the way a (contemporary, educated) religious person views reality not in opposition to the way an educated atheist or agnostic does, but as an extension - enrichment if you do not mind - of the latter. The difference in world views they hold is then not unlike the difference between a black&white photo and a colour one, where the latter adds an additional dimension to the information provided by the former, thus enriching it in principle. I say "in principle", since, of course, a good quality (technically or aesthetically) b&w photo will convey more info, and/or be more pleasant to look at, than a poor quality colour photo. Because of this I prefer to read e.g. Richard Dawkins (the militant atheist but a first class populariser of Darwinism) rather than somebody whose faith is showing at the expense of the quality of his/her scientific explanations; because of this I do not mind learning from people like you about the "exterior" of my faith, its historical or anthropological background. Unlike those who are afraid to loose their faith if they look at it from the outside and hence feel compelled to attack the outsider.

In particular, I agree that >religious enquiry is a feigned enquiry, which involves “indwelling” (Polanyi) in the experience< if 'enquiry' is understood only in the scientific meaning of the word, where the researcher must check his/her findings through contact with material reality (experimentation) holding to a strict subject-object differentiation as in e.g. pre-quantum physics (so the former cannot "dwell" in the latter). However, you have enquiries e.g. in (pure) mathematics which are not subject to any scientific verification, i.e. through experiments, only to internal (logical) consistency. Nevertheless, such enquiries are useful because their results often prove to be applicable a posteriori (e.g. in physics), a fact referred to as the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics."

(continued)
The "usefulness" of religious models is measured along different criteria. For instance, they should be built on a more sophisticated approach to the subject-object relation than a strict mutual exclusiveness that was so inherent in the way classical physics saw (material) reality.

I could not understand your harsh words about Sells' article. He presented a model, an interpretation of his Christian faith, which I think would be understood and shared by most Christians. Of course, to an outsider they must sound incomprehensible. You wrote that he will not "consider the architecture of godheads, via the objective lens of scientific and histographical knowledge focused on theocrasia." I do not see why he should. You can say something meaningful in English without being aware of, or even having to discuss, which of the words you use come from Latin, which are similar to German words etc.

Anyhow, thank you again for providing food for my thoughts. I think we can both learn from each other - something along the lines I tried to explain with the b&w and colour photo - without having to speak derogatively about the other's perspective just because one cannot understand it, as it happens too often also on this OLO when the topic touches on religion. "Wir sind gewohnt dass die Menschen verhoehnen, was sie nicht verstehen" (We are used to it that people mock things they cannot understand) says Goethe's Faust to his poodle. You will find a more poetic translation of the whole quote on my homepage www.gvirsik.de because this, indeed, has been my experience with many people's attitude to both mathematical as well as religious "things".

Thank you for your considered post. I will need to think about it and come back later.

“You wrote that he will not "consider the architecture of godheads, via the objective lens of scientific and histographical knowledge focused on theocrasia." I do not see why he should.” – George {about me on Sells]

The above issue is a carry-forward from a discourse on “How Does God Exist?”. The content of the article just assumed that god is “Jesus”. That is, an extreme a priori assumption, not only for an atheist or agnostic, but for a seeker of god too. Knowing How God Exists [The architecture of God], lies not in defending a priori posits in self-confirming worship.

The Periodic Table of elements can show fundamental particles can be the same, yet, when rearranged form different elements (religions). Regarding theocrasia, Sells, knows the Mystery Cults of the300 BCE to 200 CE period, like elements, share common fundamental particles (creation story, virgin birth, a saviour, sacrifice) . Sells recognises that atomic-molecular style relation, BUT, not for Jesus in Christianity. Jesus is exempt. It is, as commented, by me, at the time, structurally, a bit like saying Zinc shares all the fundamental particles of “ The Nature of Elements”, but is not an element. Why leave Zinc out, why not, instead, leave out Xeon (Mithras)? Herein, Mithras, not Jesus, becomes sidelined from objective scrutiny.

I assume Sells sees his belief as faith in (posited) god. I don’t. I see it conditioned (operant) worship. For Sells, “tacit hesitancy” (Polanyi) with in a RELIGION cannot be multiplied say tenfold to test fundamental constitutes, EVEN TO PURSUE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF GOD, and “test a religion in a threatening environment. Verifications/Falsifications of conjectures (Popper) are possible at the level of studying Religiosity and Religion, which exist in history. Sells’ faith is in a religion, not god.

Guided religious doctrine tends towards espoused “concrete” understanding. Something Sells would need to leave behind, to accept say the “indistinct” Shadow of [posited] God across religions [like the Allegory of the Cave]. Herein, Sells is boxed-in by “worship” in religion.

George, would you say "unreasonably effective" may just describe what is fictional where "Perhaps its usefulness and use will only point out what cannot be". Provided of course, one is capable of drawing this distinction. i.e. We have many playpens of the mind, abstractions and mental constructions that cannot be anything other than just ideas which is all well and good provided one can comprehend that these thoughts can become highly complex, ramified and ever more incoherent to the point that in many cases they proceed to obscure their fictional status. It is easy to see how thought is constantly creating problems in this manner and then trying to solve them but in the process making matters worse because it doesn't notice that it's actually creating them. The more it progresses the more problems it creates.

The problem as I see it is that our human minds have a tendency to think in finite closed systems and impose this notion to everything. Peter gives a classic example of this situation with ..."While we all know that the event is impossible, we must cling to the concept in order to save our theology from distortion." Does Peter express any other motive other than to desperately desire to defend a dogma from distortion? Does Peter seek some peculiar reward from what is simply the residual perpetuation of a teddy mind virus? How can this be transcendent when it is only representative of a fictional phenomenon of consciousness? Where is there evidence of Peter's overall order of mind with this example of an exclusive break, border and boundary? Does this particular mindset explain how we can have bangs in "vacuums" and teddy wars against everything across the planet?

aqvariovs,

"I thought it might even go back further. To the warrior/hunter eating the heart of his enemy/kill to take in his enemies/kills strengths or nature."

Transubstantiation as in catholic doctrine, where the nature/body/characteristics are ingested, are not known to me [don't claim to be an expert], in primitism in the time immediately before the Middle Easten Garden Cultures [before Sumer]. That would take us to 15,000 BP [that stat. would be a problem to an orthdox Christians, of course.].

I have read fairly widely in the areas of Greek and Roman history and think the idea would be sickening to them. Albeit, in some battles civilisation?) private parts of the loosing side were removed and offered in worship. But, that is a different model, to yours'. "Lord of Rings" moments some times occur, after combat, even in modern times. The reasons for taking bodies parts was different.

Rome had prohibitions against vivisection, while lions were ripping people apart for entertainment - strange.

Ingesting aphrodisiacs [taking properts from an animal] is still fairly common in East Asia.

My "guess" is The Last Supper has Judaic-meal origins, and, celemony (Protestant) or (transubstiation)are built on to the Jewish penchant towards home-faith rites?

What you posit would be known to primitivism. However, personally, I doubt the "idea" carried through c. 13,000 years via Garden Cultures via Sumer to Roman colonies in any consistent manner. Perhaps, some one "like" Jung would say primitive ideas remain in the collective consciousness?

Pleas note, my reference to guessing and the question marks.

Oliver, I am afraid we are conducting parallel monologues but I think you are right when you say "Sells’ faith is in a religion, not god." More exactly, Sells' (and many others') faith is in the Christian version (I used the term "model") of Transcendental Reality. There are many models of this Reality, meaning many religions, some rather naive (either by their primitive, pre-rational nature or by the way some individuals see them), and of course there is one "model" that says that no such Reality exists, whatever "exists" means (there is e.g. a difference between saying "John has a brother" and "this equation has a solution", which refer to two different understandings of existence; and there might be a third one).

You seem to be suggesting (if I understand you properly) an enquiry into this Reality, picking from existing religious systems, or rather just pre-systemized myths, according to some, apparently purely historical and anthropological, criteria that I do not understand. Well, I think this artificial approach, building your beliefs from some "Leggo blocks" taken from different religions will not work. You can develop new approaches to this Reality, but you have to start from some existing, historically and psychologically grounded one. Like you cannot successfully put together an artificial universal language. Remember the fate of esperanto which had no chance in competing with the English language for the position of THE universal language that different cultures can communicate in. Contemporary English is better positioned for that goal precisely because it was not designed but evolved naturally, although it differs from the way e.g. Shakespeare used it. (ctd)

(ctd) I believe one can dispute which religion has what advantages and merits but I do not think one can start from an artificially concocted one. Sells and I prefer to start from Christianity, but there are other legitimate starting points as long as they are based on live, historically rooted, religions. You can conduct a dialogue between two religions (say Christianity and Islam) but not between two components (say Jesus and Mithras) taken out of the context of their respective religious systems.

Keiran, in the limited space I am given I cannot quote parts of your post I agree with (they are often very accurate descriptions of what a mathematician feels like doing), and where I beg to differ. The "unreasonableness" in Eugene Wigner's famous quote refers to applicability (in describing and manipulating the material world) of these "abstractions and mental constructions that cannot be anything other than just ideas". The scientist has to believe in the existence of this material world although he/she has access to it only through his/her senses and - as seems to be more and more the case with contemporary cosmological theories - self-contained directly unverifiable mathematical models of that reality. The religious person believes in the existence of a Transcendental world although his/her only access to it is on a personal, psychological, level. Well, practically everybody believes that our senses give us access to a material world that is "out there", but only specialists believe (and comprehend) that mathematical models, where sensually verifiable are only the conclusions not the assumptions, give us access to that world. With religious models of a non-material, or rather meta-material, Transcendental world it is even more complicated. However for psychological reasons - or is it because of how our brains are "wired"? - there is a need to have access to this Transcendental world also by people who are not capable of great abstractions. It seems to be the case that only the contemporary Western man has lost the need for this teddy, as you call it, because it has been replaced by many artificial teddies.

George,

Caught-up with some analyses of my own for a time. Impressed by your site. Good quote on Faust.[Where has Sells sold his mind? To a the "authoritarian traditionalism" (Popper) of a Cred?]

Back in a few days.

In the meantime:

Popper (1963) wrote of trust and distrust in man. The former complements "individualistic rationalism" and the latter "authoritarian traditionalism". Herein, Poper holds free societies have "dethroned authority", because of:

-1- "Respect for the authority of the truth..." Investigations are "not interpreted to our liking".

-2- "A lesson learned in the religious wars..."

"Convictions can only be of value when they are freely and sincerely held..." Popper maintains, we must distinguish between "sincerity" [don't draw authoritarian conclusions, "truth is not manifest"] and "dogmatic stubborness and laziness".

-3- We learn from "listening to one another, and critizing one another...". Accept intellectual mutualism.

-Other-

(a) To become an atheist, agnostic or rational believer, all these parties need to be willing apply various perspectives to their knowledge discovery venture:

Being in doubt about belief, in any of the aforesaid, is not, in my opinion, an oxymoron. Instead, one holds a hand full of cards. Each card is a posit, against which, results of investigations suggest various probabilities [for "your" investigation]. All parties should retain a degraded posit, as a possibility, against their "positive heuristic" (Lakatos).

(b) For months, we have seen Sells' encapturement in "authoritarian traditionalism" (Popper), via obstinant "indwelling" (Polanyi), in a Christian Cred. That is worship not discovery (Polanyi)

Kieran,

All disciplines will defend their core structure (Lakatos). Feel Sells has some rights here. But, his staying affixed and being unwilling to listen to any challenge is what is problematic.

Suggest it is less closed to hold on to "teddy" with one's eyes open, then, looking externally, thinking, and, then, returning to "teddy", after assessment. But, closely one's eyes, and, not appraising, whether or not, one should be holding "teddy", based on what one might learn, is a concern.

George when one reads Peter's articles it is the inconsistencies that cut loose, cavort, ricochet and make whoopee of any desire for an overall order of mind. His version of transcendence is simply an exclusive break and rejection of the material world from which all exists. This then becomes an all consuming transcendental world which is exceptionalism at its best for in relationship to the planet, this mindset simply sees humanity more like a parasite living on a host, rather than an organism in a symbiotic, and thus mutually beneficial, relationship with an infinite environment.

On a positive note, I suspect that we humans share many unconscious yearnings and that the freedom to follow our intellectual curiosities is one of the greatest and where transcendence always remains connected. My thoughts are that a unique spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of each living being, is a physical process, not a miracle nor some break in the fabric of causation. This spirit implies intelligence, consciousness and sentience. When this living being dies, so does its spirit. i.e. We have a connected material brain sufficient to account for the evolution of spirit in a material and infinite universe. Joy, love, grace etc are material and by just studying what is, it is possible to find what already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing. I'm sure that if we had the good gardener rather than the good shepherd we would not ignore evolution as this process occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy?

This connectedness is where there are real enticement rules that you do get to vote on. It is this connection/relationship that counts. BUT do you think someone’s all-powerful teddy has confiscated it?

Oliver, it is hard to disagree with your quotes from Popper although I somehow fail to see its relevance when dealing with faith as such, not only its rationalised component. Being "dogmatic, authoritarian" are old labels which can be applied to certain representatives of all world views and convictions: Christian, atheistic, agnostic or what you like. On the other hand, I agree that a rational dispute can be useful for a better understanding of your own convictions, although this only seldom leads to their complete abandonment.

I have a hierarchy of other people’s opinions, in this ascending order of preferences:

1) trivial (sometimes even offensive) points that I disagree with;
2) trivial confirmations of views I hold myself;
3) non-trivial confirmations of views I hold myself;
4) non-trivial views, opinions, theories etc. that disagree with my point of view but help me to better understand/defend my own position;
5) non-trivial views, opinions, theories etc. (that might or might not agree with my own point of view) which help me to improve, extend, amend my own position and views.

It will be a sure sign of me getting senile when I shall avoid or ignore opinions on levels 4 and 5, and only look for those corresponding to levels 2 and 3.

I apparently have not read the threads where "for months you have seen Sells' encapturement in 'authoritarian traditionalism'" but maybe he just has a different hierarchy of preferences which I think he is entitled to. One does not hold one's religious convictions for purely rational reasons - and only these are open to a dispute, where my above hierarchy could be applied - since there is more to it: in Blaise Pascal's words "le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point". These "reasons of the heart" (or rather spirit) are hard to discuss with a person unable to live them. Coming to my previous metaphor, you can discuss with a colour-blind person the various wavelengths of the electromagnetic waves reflected from a colourful flower, but you cannot make him see its colourful beauty that you experience.

George,

Thank you for you reply. I will repond again a little later.

[Aside on seeing colour: Humans typically have three types of cones in their eyes. Our trichromatic vision is possible because of three forms of rhodopsin. In "colour blind" people their may be only two forms of rhodopin. Red-Green is common. And yellow-blue rare. Turtles have septchromatic vision, seven forms of rhodopsin. Colour! Imagine! If I understand your point, we can't, nor, can we hear in 3-D like dolphins.]

Sells opened debate on a public forum on the Architecture of God and latter religiosity vis~a~secularism. Some contributors, simply, countered with atheist views, informed and less informed. Herein, Sells tried to maintain the same "indwelling" (Polanyi) structure, wherein, worship, rather than the exchange of information is purpose of the exercise :i.e., Credo. In this frame, Sells, sees [he said so] critique as opposition in hard terms. He is probably correct in some instances.

Alternatively, I posited a realignment of methodology, then quoting Confucius, "One does not see the face the mountain from the inside" [Wise advise, methinks.]. Instead, set aside the worship [living in the performance], where the ideal is confirm and "indwell" (Polanyi), not exchange information. Herein, the authority of the Priest over the congregation, does, I suggest, represent "authoritian traditionalism" and confirms the practise of a creed, ahead of, real knowledge discovery. For me, Luther's [understandably] reformation ran on only one cylinder.

Examining "Jesus" in the context theocrasia around his life-time could prove revealing: If measures did suggest Jesus was one of the syncretic (Toynbee)gods of the period, that does not necessarily disprove the existence of God. Worshipping "Jesus" could be prevent Sells finding God [If such an entity exists and chooses to be revealed.].

As alluded to in a previous post, I would engage a Flat Earther, but, I agree, it does not follow that person has no right to believe the Earth is flat. However, I would like the Flat Earther to leave the comfort of the Flat Earth Creed, and examine evidence (tentative accept/tenatively refute).

George,

Thank you for you reply. I will repond again a little later.

[Aside on seeing colour: Humans typically have three types of cones in their eyes. Our trichromatic vision is possible because of three forms of rhodopsin. In "colour blind" people their may be only two forms of rhodopin. Red-Green is common. And yellow-blue rare. Turtles have septchromatic vision, seven forms of rhodopsin. Colour! Imagine! If I understand your point, we can't, nor, can we hear in 3-D like dolphins.]

Sells opened debate on a public forum on the Architecture of God and latter religiosity vis~a~secularism. Some contributors, simply, countered with atheist views, informed and less informed. Herein, Sells tried to maintain the same "indwelling" (Polanyi) structure, wherein, worship, rather than the exchange of information is purpose of the exercise :i.e., Credo. In this frame, Sells, sees [he said so] critique as opposition in hard terms. He is probably correct in some instances.

Alternatively, I posited a realignment of methodology, then quoting Confucius, "One does not see the face the mountain from the inside" [Wise advise, methinks.]. Instead, set aside the worship [living in the performance], where the ideal is confirm and "indwell" (Polanyi), not exchange information. Herein, the authority of the Priest over the congregation, does, I suggest, represent "authoritian traditionalism" and confirms the practise of a creed, ahead of, real knowledge discovery. For me, Luther's [understandably] reformation ran on only one cylinder.

Examining "Jesus" in the context theocrasia around his life-time could prove revealing: If measures did suggest Jesus was one of the syncretic (Toynbee)gods of the period, that does not necessarily disprove the existence of God. Worshipping "Jesus" could be prevent Sells finding God [If such an entity exists and chooses to be revealed.].

As alluded to in a previous post, I would engage a Flat Earther, but, I agree, it does not follow that person has no right to believe the Earth is flat. However, I would like the Flat Earther to leave the comfort of the Flat Earth Creed, and examine evidence (tentative accept/tentatively refute).

Keiran, Sells' article starts with "In the biblical mentality there is no such thing as life outside the body. All life is enfleshed." so I cannot see why "his version of transcendence is simply an exclusive break and rejection of the material world from which all exists." He seems to be arguing exactly the opposite, namely that a soul living on its own, outside the body, is not only in conflict with contemporary understanding of consciousness, but also at odds with biblical tradition; and that the body-soul dualism came to Christianity from Greek sources. The article again is highly technical and it cannot make much sense to a person without some previous theological qualifications. There are points, that I would present perhaps differently, but I would not push this because my theological qualifications are very meagre.

More importantly, I cannot see where his article can possibly conflict with convictions held by a non-Christian, atheist or what. His (and my) belief in a scientifically unverifiable extension of the material world is exactly that: an extension of the belief in a material world, and this belief is shared with atheists and agnostics. He even explains away the only point, where there could be a conflict - the re-emergence of Jesus in a material body with the same DNA as that which he had before his death.

I completely agree with you in rejecting the mindset which "simply sees humanity more like a parasite living on a host, rather than an organism in a symbiotic, and thus mutually beneficial, relationship with an infinite environment." This is how you could have described the Western universal mindset until only some decades ago. I am only not sure about your reference to an "infinite environment": probably not in the ecological sense, since our planet's resources are anything but infinite. Infinity is a clear concept in mathematics, not so clear in cosmology, and I suspect superfluous in theology. Anyhow, it is rather our ancestors - Christian or not - who failed to see humanity as living in symbiotic relationship with its environment, and acted, accordingly. (ctd)

(ctd) However, I do not see where Sells shows adherence to this outdated view. The shift from seeing the material environment as being something unrelated to us, that can be exploited, to the view that sees us as a part of this material world, which we have to cherish and maintain, has occurred - or is still occurring - in both the Christian and naturalistic mindsets.

I agree with almost all you say in the second last paragraph. Except for where you claim Jesus should have presented himself as the good gardener rather than the good shepherd, thus basing his teachings on the needs of humanity some two thousand years into the future - perhaps even explaining evolution and Big Bang - rather than on parables based on everyday experiences of his listeners. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just could not understand that part where you judge what Jesus should have done from today's scientifically informed perspective.

Oliver (and Keiran), I am sorry that it took me so long to realise what was the problem with these parallel monologues of ours. I was aware of only this article of Sells that we were supposed to be discussing, and could not understand why the topic slipped to being about Peter himself. Your reference to "Architecture of God" made me look up his other articles and I found another 58(!) of them. Of course, I did not read them all, only the one called "How does God exist?" since you probably had this one in mind when speaking of Architecture of God. Well, had he tried to defend some Flat Earth Creed, as you hint, I am sure he would not have got 242 responses; neither would I if I wrote something about, say, algebraic topology (and the administrator would let it through). This indicates that his topics are obviously touching a sore nerve in our society. Anyhow, I have to admit that I was impressed by what he wrote, though ... (you will have to wait for the continuation another 24 hours, since I am not allowed to post more).

George, I value reading your thoughts and perspectives but I'm wondering if you are overly concerned with the role of a specialist and if this tempers your thoughts at the expense of the bigger picture. I feel there is a need to shift from closed systems to inclusive, interactive world views and broader environments including the infinite environment because isn't it reasonable that intimacies cannot exist in isolation. e.g. With articles such as Peter's I've found myself starting to pay more attention to the illogics in information where there is a need to look at it consciously and try to follow it down because one thing always leads to another.

This is most necessary with theologians who are brilliant virus writers where their software is so well designed to the point that many victims cannot detect its presence so won't know it and may even vigorously deny it. But just see how maliciously these viruses hack in on the vulnerable with great success and penetrate all bases by disabling mechanisms essential to human functioning. It seems that Peter's article did a pretty good job with a distracting emphasis on one type of dualism that everything else is overlooked.

e.g. Peter jumps on the point to remind us with "In the biblical mentality there is no such thing as life outside the body. All life is enfleshed." This is all well and good. However, whilst it may not be a "body-soul dualism" as such, we get a different other-world dualism when he proceeds to make whoopee with Jesus who "ascends in the flesh" ...... "and presumably, in his sitting at the right hand of the Father." Impossible in a material sense and his version of transcendence. This is an exclusive break and rejection of the material world from which all exists to whatever transcendental teddy world one likes to call it ...... valhalla, elysian, heaven, paradise, nirvana.

This is where we find Peter's inconsistency.

George at last you have woken up to the cuckoo behaviour of Oliver and Keiran. You have been very charitable in engaging with them. Not so with their abuse of Peter.

That Peter has wiped the dust from his feet and moved on from their responses is to be admired. Is that not the injunction of the Lord?

The limited confines of the measurable, the evidenced, the material must be very uncomfortable as reflected in their ongoing anger and resentment of people of faith, especially those who dwell in both the domains of science and faith and those who can engage in dialogue without pronouncing formulaic belief statements from scripture and doctrine. As Christians we can only talk from a personal faith position informed by the deep springs of the Church through which flow our story spanning millenia.

Is not faith the assurance of things longed for, and the conviction of things not seen. (Paul to the Hebrews). So longing for truth, and the loving strength of purpose flowing from the God Present but Absent is real to people of faith. Truth extended from the measurable and provable, into the anticipated future with all to be revealed, as it has for the past and is happening in the now through unfolding human knowledge and undestanding in all spheres of human activity.

As I have referenced before, Kierkegaard's Absolute Paradox applies; that Jesus is the Son of God is either accepted in faith with a great Amen, or rejected as an offence to reason. Therefore Oliver and Keiran are acting quite in accord with the Kierkegaard proposition. As am I.

Many of us position ourselves within the framework, forever expanding, of faith in God; we are of God, the Ultimate Reality. Others confine themselves to the measurable/ testable reality.

It is sad that there is not more engagement with Peter's work from people of faith. I stand to be corrected, but I feel it would satisfy Peter more, as it is the new money-changers he seems to be challenging

George [and Kieran],

I agree, interest in Flat or Round Earths would not encourage a similar response, as might the topic, “How Does God Exist”? Just the same, I posit, there are parallels between the two, depending on how one runs with Sells’excellent title.

From my frame, there was a disconnect between the title and the content. As said, early-on in that thread, Sells immediately adopts an “a priori” position to his topic. He has jumped several steps. Before, we can say “a”, “b” or “c”, is God , or, any combination are gods, one should stand back and place theocrasia on the table and examine the parts.

The OT and the NT have different godheads. The former, the Council of El, when Jehovah was a minor tribal god. Herein, Middle Eastern tribes members actually married the tribe to “their” god, not unlike the Nun marrying Jesus in the Catholic Church. El, was the Chair of the Council and the Father of Jehovah [Psalm 82]. A few generations after the lifetime of Jesus, a different godhead emerges (Father, Son and Holy Spirit/Ghost) .

The NT Christian godhead, itself, seems well aligned to the Trinity of Serapis, Serapis, Isis, Horus, “three aspects of the one god” (Wells). The Trinity of Serapis appears to have been formed through the fusion of Greek and Egyptian gods, in the time of Ptolemy I (367 BCE-283 BCE). Wells continues:

“Horus was the only beloved son of Osiris (Serapis)”, whom, as known to The Book of the Dead was [a statue] buried with the departed to intercede on behalf of the dead with God the Father, “pleading for the dead” [The Book of the Dead]. Horus our Saviour, “ ‘he raises the dead … he will save us, after death we shall still be the care of his [sic. His] providence’” [Ancient Eygyptian source, in Wells]. When Horus “ ‘ascended to the Father’ ” [Ancient Egyptian source, in Wells], he became “one with the father” (Wells).

[Cont.]

The above suggests anomalies and theocrasia pertaining to the Christian faith, using the same basic architectures, known to the circa 600 BCE – 200 CE period. Some wanting to know, “How God exists”, might explore these matters.

“Indwelling” [Polanyi] in worship of any god is a poor methodology. Sometimes one needs to change the setting on the microscope and take a broader view in investigation (Popper). Being shackled to a priesthood and a Credo, can reinforce falsehoods, as with the disciples of Marx, Freud and Alder (Popper). Please recall, Polanyi’s posit that the basic idea of a Church/Temple service is not to exchange information but to affirm existing commitments.

Someone wanting to see “How does/do Gods exist?” needs to step away from worship.
Herein, propositions can be developed and even modelled from theocrasia, histographies, cultural anthropology, sociology, psychology, and, even, neurology.

Moreover, we can test for triangulations of evidences. We cannot prove or disapprove the existence of God, however, we can develop tests for “how” gods may have been created, by humans, in History. Herein, for a believer in God, gods and theocracia can be cross-matched and it could be [probably, would be] be found the Mystery Cults of the Roman period draw on similar theocracia. Albeit, the specific secretions (Toynbee) differ on common elements, like with DNA bridges.

Confirmation of human theistic architectures strengthens the positive heuristic of the believer in atheism.

Contrarily, pragmatically, someone believing in Zeus can change camp and leave Olympia, or, go into to denial, or, maintain a belief in “God”, in some form, yet, recognise the presence of cognitive disequilibration (Piaget). In the latter case, the god “system” needs to be reformulated by the believer.

Thus, I posit, hanging onto worship, limits potential discovery. One could be in the feigned compartment of false understanding of god(s), in relation to; god(s), real, constructed or imagined.

Boxgum,

Neither angry, uncomfortable nor resentful. To assume Zeus, Jesus or Mithras is God, “a priori”, is limiting. The architectures of gods, priesthoods and creeds, are largely known. A God, if it exists, might stand apart from all [contrived?] religions.

(Continued from 24 hours ago) I have to admit I was rather impressed by "How does God exist?". Of course, you have to read it from within a Christian framework. Being a mathematician and a Catholic, symbols and models based on them play probably a more crucial role in my understanding of these things than in Peter’s. However, if I wanted to enter into polemics with Peter, it would have to be at a very low and modest level, since he obviously knows much more about Christian theology than I do. Indeed, the problem with this kind of articles, and discussions supposed to follow, is that “in the realm of theology everyone is an expert no matter what their training”, as he himself acknowledges. Nevertheless, I think one should always try to understand those, who are honest in their approach but look only at the finger, and cannot understand that it points to the moon.

Keiran, I do not understand what “role of a specialist” you have in mind: my mathematics-inspired insights or Peter’s Christian theology. As far as tempering my thoughts at the expense of the bigger picture, I think I answered that in my previous posting about the five levels in my hierarchy of other people’s opinions, the highest being “non-trivial views, opinions, theories etc. (that might or might not agree with my own point of view) which help me to improve, extend, amend my own position and views.” You cannot embrace all possible positions, systems or what you call them, at once: you have to start somewhere and then either freeze on that position or gradually widen and deepen it by considering other positions along the scheme thesis - antithesis - synthesis (if you like Hegelian/Marxian dialectics). Otherwise I would not understand what you mean by an “inclusive, interactive” world view. Only very seldom contacts with the outside world (outside of your system of beliefs) lead to a conversion, when amendment actually means a replacement of your original system by another one. (ctd)

(ctd) Also, if you mean by “intimacies that cannot exist in isolation” the impossibility of a private religion, I agree. The idea that (Christian) theologians are virus writers is new to me; usually atheism is being seen as a virus that might lead to the demise of cultural West as we have know it for centuries.

boxgum, thank you for your inspired words. I was already afraid that these postings of mine are being read only by Oliver and Keiran. You will find that in one of my previous postings I “ wiped the dust from my feet and moved on” when I thought that the person in question could offer nothing but abuse, whatever were his psychological reasons. However I think that Oliver and Keiran, at least in their more recent postings, can offer more, some interesting views from the outside of the world of faith that Christians “indwell” (Oliver’s reference to Polanyi). Of course, to engage with them you have to go outside of your “house”, stand next to them, and try to see what they see, rather than look at them out of your window unable to imagine what they can see on the exterior of your house. Yes, they will make all sorts of claims about the interior of your house, which they are unable or unwilling to enter. And yes, it is hard to convey to them the beautiful view of the whole neighborhood that you get from the windows on your upper floor, a view they cannot get standing on the street, albeit on firm ground that they are so proud of.

Oliver, I think I finally understood your point about theocracy (defined in my Merriam-Webster as “a fusion or mixture of different deities in the minds of worshipers; also the identification of formerly separate deities”) through your informative insight into the world of cultural anthropology and mythology, that is obviously your preferred position on these matters. I am grateful to you for this, and would like to say more, but cannot continue only after another 24 hours.

George, when I mentioned a desire for an overall order of mind it is more in reference to a wholeness, an undivided, unbroken and without border connection ......... (i.e. wholely rather than holy. lol) What this means for myself at least is behavioural. Our perceptions have a circular causality that loops back onto itself. If we go back to 1865 we have one Claude Bernard who noticed that the "constancy of the internal milieu was the essential condition to a free life" where we strive to maintain a set connected equilibrium which has little to do with a fantasy teddy or one concocted religious role model. Hopefully from this will flow an orderly action within the whole. This is why I put forward the suggestion of a veritable, down to earth good gardener who would speak of causality, uncertainty, inseparability, conservation, complementarity, irreversibility, infinity, materialism, relativism and interconnection ............. as interrelated or consupponible. i.e. the bigger picture.

One person who sees the bigger picture is Max Whisson from his lab in Western Australia who has come up with a brilliant and very simple idea. It involves getting water out of the air. Whilst most people in error regard the air as empty, the fact is that there is a lot of water and when you cool the air you get water. Max has a great idea that couldn't be simpler nor more obvious and an even more simple design to give the world clean water.

Whilst this is far removed from virus writing theologians who replicate dogma, it is heartening to see a free life who just looks at the connectivity of what is to find things that no person had ever known or imagined before.

Find and ye shall seek.

"Oliver, I think I finally understood your point about theocracy (defined in my Merriam-Webster as “a fusion or mixture of different deities in the minds of worshipers; also the identification of formerly separate deities”) through your informative insight into the world of cultural anthropology and mythology, that is obviously your preferred position on these matters."

It is my position because the elements of the theocrasia tend to be common for the gods/godheads, as objectively known to History, especially, circa 600 BCE to 200 CE. Somewhat like the A-T-C-G nucleotides: The characteristics are common but the configurations change. That is why I used the Period Table analogy.

With respect to Mystery Cults of the Roman period, the mechanism for the construction of Gods is well and Wells(ahem) known. Wells, also, in a similar fashion refers to the "Alexandian God factory". Moreover, we know of historical Jesus-like person known to have lived before and after Jesus.

Sells could see [comparative religions from theology school?]that there were Mystery Cults, but, could not desgnate Christianity as one. That is why, elsewhere, I said, he claims all the elements are elements, but, according to Sells, metaphorically, Zinc, is not.

The mechanisms for compiling Gods is as well known, or, better known, to History, than the processes for building genomes. These processes are testable. [If one sets aside some extreme essentialist posits. Assuming: We are not dreaming. The wasn't created yesterday and all our memory implanted in our one-day old heads.]

The above said, dispproving all the religions and cults from Sumer to Wacko, does NOT disprove the existence of God. But, this finding does
degrade the posit.

(cont.)

/cont.

Worship, of Aten, Zues or Jesus, is centripedal. Analysis of the Architecture of the creation of gods in History is centrifugal.

Liked your house analogy,as the opposite to Confucius' inside the mountain analogy. The process of analysing religious takes us closer to mechanisms/fundamentals (to the numbers, than the finger [your metaphor).

The Atheist should test the existence of God and hold the Atheist creed tentatively. Likewise, the believer in Zeus or a divine Jesus must try to objectively disprove their positive and hold their believe tentatively. Both must experimentally pull-away from the centripal forces of their prior kernel.

Boxgum,

You hold great malice towards those whom Sells' refers to as "opponents". It is easy to see why Christians and other theists, avoid pursue open debate, and, why there have been bloody wars fought, and, great schisms formed. On Iraqi on CNN recently, there was an interview conducted by Anderson Cooper, wherein Michael (?) Ware pointed to "four" Iraqi wars based on religions. The combatants all inert, to the extent that nothing is allowed to penitrate their outer shells.

With Christians, in particular, I see a huge gap, between creed and deed. Debate is opposition.

Does the Catholic Church protect pedaphiles but denigh REAL history, because the former is merely political (minor institutional problem) and the latter Pandora's Box (major institutaional problem)?

I suggest you consider humanism and mutualism in the pursuit of knowledge discovery.

(Continued from 24 hours ago) Maybe, Oliver, you are right that Peter should have called his article “ How does God exist? A Christian view” or something like that, however I doubt he would have received less hostile and irrelevant responses; after all this article we are supposed to discuss carried that extra “in Christian theology”, and it did not seem to help. Why do you not offer another article titled “How does/do Gods exist?”, along the lines of the recent postings of yours? It would be an interesting reading for me, and I am sure not only for me. It might attract some outraged reactions from all sorts of religious fanatics, though I am sure not as abusive and offensive as many of the reactions from anti-religion fanatics that Peter’s articles attracted. I think only that you should not use your position and findings to denigrate those of Peter’s or even Christian theologians in general. Like I would not mind if you reminded me that I shared 98% (or is it now just 95%?) of my DNA with a chimpanzee, but I would not like it if you denigrated me because of that, if you wanted to conclude from this fact that there is no much difference between me, my ideas, and those of a chimpanzee.

You certainly know more about the bible, OT and NT, than I. This knowledge is very useful, however it reminds me of the anglicist at our Mathematical institute in communist Czechoslovakia in the sixties. There was no censorship on maths books, we only could not afford the price of English language monographs. So when the Institute ordered the advanced monograph I wanted to read, I was very happy when it finally arrived. However, I had to wait for a couple of days that it took our anglicist — the lady who corrected the English in our maths publications — to peruse the book looking for new mathematical terms and expressions. (ctd)

(ctd) She “read” through the book that would take me months to work my way through. She knew all the words and expressions that were in it, but, of course, not being a mathematician she did not have a clue what it was about. But nobody complained, her work was valuable for the mathematicians in the Institute. So “Someone wanting to see ‘How does/do Gods exist?’ needs to step away from worship” sounds like the anglicist saying “Someone wanting to read this book in 3 days needs to step away from being a mathematician”.

When you say that you could investigate “how gods may have been created, by humans”, you surely mean “images of god(s)” since nobody believes humans have created gods like they did e.g. computers. And this is exactly where I entered this debate: to show that the religious statement “God created humans” and the cultural anthropologist’s statement “humans created images of god” can be compatible in the same sense as the statements “mathematicians CREATE mathematics” and “mathematicians DISCOVER mathematics (which was just out there, ‘created’ or not).

Kerian, I am very sorry but I cannot understand much of what you said here. The same as I cannot understand much of what postmodernists say, which of course does not imply that this is not my fault. I do not even know whether the association with postmodernism is not just my personal impression. The quote from Claude Bernard seems to me to hint at the undesirability of cognitive dissonances which occur, e.g. with people whose faith is too irrational and hence clashes with what they know (is known) from science, history, etc. Also, does your ‘good gardener’ stand for an eclectic philosopher in the “garden” of many systems, or approaches to philosophy?

Your last sentence reminds me of my favorite joke: pure mathematicians know many questions but don’t know the answers, applied mathematicians know many answers but don’t know (how to formulate) the questions that go with them. Could one extend this to modern (analytic) vs. postmodern philosophers?

Seeking God and seeking Christianity are not the same. God and Jehovah and Jesus and Isis and Horus are separate constructs. Were one to build a structural equation, one would been need to define the constructs and, test for internal consistency and discreetness and shared attributes. Just how clean is the construct, can be asked?

Peter and other Christians, whom take “a priori” posits manage their data inappropriately, I contend. Someone worshiping Aten is in the same boat. One “does” need to stand-back to achieve understanding. [Objectivi Forensic history and anthropology are the tools, in-so-much-as mathematics is required to understand the stresses placed on a bridge.

Peter defends Christianity; He seek not seek God. He does not forensically analyse the subject-predicate form of God exists. He accepts the generalised proposition, but, adopts, “a priori” [those words again], Jesus atomically as the [sole] subject, with out testing the subject of the subject-predicate form. Poor logic. Poor forensics.

Mathematicians do have valuable insights but manipulating symbols representing deeper latent entities. Perhaps, closer than your anglicist friend, but being able to work an equation does not represent understanding. Paul Davies touched the later in The Confessions of a Relativist [or similar title.]. In the 70s, psychologists would cite, the example of six-graders and parallelograms: The teacher sketched a typically-oriented parallelogram on the board. The children computed the correct answers. The teacher and children all smiled. The psychologist turned the parallelogram 45 degrees. The students froze. “Miss! We haven’t done this yet”. The kids could work the equation but did not understand, the idea of area.

Humans “create” characters all the time. Alexander Meinong argued the “Medusa” and “Hamlet” are real entities: As a performance in which we can “indwell” (Polanyi). The proposition that “Hamlet killed Polonius” is true (Meinong) to an audience (Polanyi). Bertrand Russell developed Meinong’s posit, wherein, characters, “subsist”, rather than exist.

Herein, according to these philosophers, even to an atheist, Zeus and Jesus, subsist. They are characteristics in a performance. To a Christian; Jesus exists, Zeus subsists. To a believer in Zeus: Zeus exists, Jesus subsists. Both require forensic investigation.

cont./

I have never attempted to denigrate Peter. Although, he [and Boxgum] are not so, ahem, Christian. I am just dust under/on (?) their feet, if I recall. They think lowly of me, personally. Aletnatively, I posit, investigate situations in a very limited matter. They produce animous. I product argument.

My position remains that one needs to understand the process of theocrasia [not the theology scool version], before focusing on one's preferred god, say, Mercury or Thor. Thor could be god. But, given correct knowledge, of such a position, the posit should be "degraded". [Degraded does not equate to denigrate].

You are a mathematician: To curious alien coming from another creation landing on Earth, which of the following statements is likely to be most "probable".

-1- God is God, or
-2- Jesus is God, or
-3- Zeus is God, or
-4- The set of gods{all gods worshipped by at least some human}, includes God?

I posit -1- for the alien and also for "faithful" theist. Else, we have religionism or denominationalism. Logically, even an athiest should accept -1-, albeit, the statement -1- would be meaningless. Peter is a Christian, but not a weak theist. Unlike, your Math colleagues, he knows the answers and the questions unto himself,stop.

I have considered writing an article. Two problems. One, I move around the world including Muslim countries and have involvement -at times- on high profile panels, e.g., WTO. Second, I would need not write an article, without thorough research, which would take me away from other endeavours.

p.s. I am happy to be classified [correctly] as a member of the Great Ape family. [I think that readjustment in the percentage of gene shared Chimps has to do redundant/duplicated genes.]

[Busy for a few days.]

Oliver, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree - or rather agree that we talk past each other - and seem to be moving in circles. Let me just repeat that Peter’s articles were about various CHRISTIAN views of the concepts of the Supernatural, Resurrection etc, not about comparative theology, ethnography of religion, philosophy of religion or what. Also, you cannot put Jesus, Jehovah, Zeus, Isis and Horus in one basket since Jesus was a person in history, the others not. You could perhaps compare how Jehovah, Allah, Brahman, God (as Christians see Him) are understood. Or you could compare the historical persons Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius.

Also, Peter and Boxgum did not call you “dust under/on (?) their feet”; you should read Luke 9:5 more carefully.

Another thing, mathematics is not just about “manipulating symbols representing deeper latent entities”, but first of all about understanding these “latent entities”, and mathematicians are not just “able to work an equation”. Manipulation (of symbols, equations) is becoming more and more the work of computers, and one of the problems of artificial inteligence research is to determine at what level, in what sense - if at all - the highly sophisticated computer of the future will also UNDERSTAND the symbols it is manipulating. It is this understanding of mathematical concepts having ties to both our mental and material worlds - not the ability to solve practical engineering problems - that I was suggesting could shed some light on the mental, historical and metaphysical dimensions of (Christian) faith, its ability to be at the same time an ougrowth of our imagination (personal as well as collective) and also reflect some Reality “out there”, independent of our mental world(s).

George,
I would like to congratulate you for your patience on these pages, the long joust with Oliver and Kerin have not yielded much from their side but from yours a steady stream of rationality. It is down to you that I have the phrase “unreasonable effectiveness” written in my brain and have been tempted to use it in relation to the Trinity except I think we understand more about that subject and its reasonableness than some mathematical theories that inexplicably describe an aspect of reality. My absence from the discussion has been the direct result of the abuse directed against me and because of previous attempts to engage the rabid antireligionists with no effect. I got a bit tired of having stones thrown through my windows and have simply pulled down the shutters. I am still willing to engage in conversation in these pages with anyone who will take even the smallest step in attempting to understand what I am saying. Grace and Peace
Peter Sellick

Thank you for your post.

"That Peter has wiped the dust from his feet and moved on from their responses is to be admired. Is that not the injunction of the Lord?"- Boxbum

Direct quote, no citation or allusion to Luke, here. Albeit, I did look up Luke and now see the plagiary and ambiguity (for me).

Disagree mathematicians [truly] understand latent entities, else Cosmology and QM would have been unified in 90s. Stephen Hawkins admits, he underestimated the task. Rodger Penrose states, we cannot understand the complexities of a Mandelbrot set.

I have read Penrose on Platonic, Mathematical and Mental worlds, so, I have some insights into your thinking [unlike Peter].

Regarding Peter, I can understand the smart remarks made by quick visits from SOME atheists, upsetting; but see Wellian accounts of History, subject-predicate forms in philosophy and physical anthropology and broader theocrasia, legitimate Forum inputs.
The nounsense Peter sees in my posits has the weight of civilizationists, other historians, philosophers of knowledge and forensic science.

Agree you can cluster gods and you have impressively, demonstrated wide-reading in your models. Catch is, even if Jesus lived, the attributes of the Isis-Serapis godhead could have been "assigned" to that person... George Reeves could fly.

Appreciate Peter is a CHRISTIAN, with the emphasis, but, my posit is this makes him a priest of a religion NOT a seeker of God.

[Had Peter written about epicycles in worship of Ptolemy, "a priori" I would have recommended at least considering alternative celestial mechanics. The Forum is like "Speaker's Corner" it is not closed to the authority/parameters of its authors. We debate.]

George,

I once worked for two years with IBM (Washington) on AI. Historically, I was a programmer, but, here, Chaired the handover of business requirements specifications to application systems developers on an nine-figure AI project. The problem for AI is not so-much the symbols, but, the symbols having a fluid character.

With Banking software, for instance, one typically inputs to "hard codes" fields, say 3 months in a term deposit field. When dealing with Logically Engineered Generic Objects, the value of the term, say, x, is NOT hard coded, but, computed, from, say lodgement date (a) and maturity date (b). Catch is, "a" and/or "b" might need to be NOT hard coded to fit an other operation. With thousands of "fluid" generic objects, the idea is to NOT have static fields, rather, fluid objects. [i.e., not just variable values/symbols: 1, 2, 3, n ...].

You might be interested in checking out Japan's 6GL project (80s ?), lost to history

George, perhaps I should just give up if you think I'm pulling your leg with postmodern philosophy. After all, most of my posts in this thread at least would seem to indicate emphatically the opposite. Just happens that I've always felt quite uncomfortable with people's need for boundaries and from your perspective I'd imagine to be seen as a transgressor. Probably as a child many years ago, perhaps as an eight year old stepping away from Sunday school, I feel I just transcended and hyperlinked to the 360 degrees of an infinite material environment. Whilst consciousness may seem on top here, there are many layers and depths of unconsciousness brought into play. Play, although hard to define, is what I tend to do most and seemingly all lacking the extrinsic as well as any reduced uncertainty.

My family and friends often wonder why I post here in Peter's Forum and perhaps the main reason is the wealth of funny stuff and subroutines that I get to play with that otherwise would never be tried. There are cognitive benefits in play and enrichment that enhance behavioral flexibility. Picasso and Mozart played all their lives ........ and one can say that Max Whisson plays from his lab too.

But there are some unfortunates that do not play, that are maladaptive, fragile, inhibited, stressed or whatever? However, let's try to get the essential features of intrinsic motivation where first one should PLAY before the enrichment of find and ye shall seek.

Oliver,
Boxgum and Peter used “no citation or allusion to Luke” apparently for the same reasons one would allude to Romeo and Julia (when commenting on the fate of some unfortunate couple), without mentioning Shakespeare explicitly. However, for an e.g. Chinese audience you probably would have to. Cosmology and QM are not parts of mathematics - Hawking certainly understands the mathematics behind QM, the problem is with our understanding why (or to what extent) it models so “unreasonably effectively” features of the physical world. Penrose uses “understand” in a different sense (he actually uses the word “comprehend” in my book, whereas I would perhaps have used “visualize”) that I am not going to go into: there are books written about the term “understanding” in philosophy. My example with the mathematician and anglicist was just a shortcut.

Finally, my point was not about Peter being a Christian, but about the topic of his article, which was written from a Christian standpoint and with a Christian background. Of course, it could have been written with a different background, e.g. that of a “seeker of God” as you mention, starting from somewhere else. However, you first have to know what you seek, have an understanding of God (“definition” is here a strong word) before you can rationally engage in that seeking (emotionally it is a different matter). The Christian tradition is “ faith seeking understanding” (Augustine, Anselm: fides quaerens intellectum) whereas my impression is that yours is rather a case of “understanding seeking faith”, which I would also sympathize with.

Peter,
Thank you for your words of appreciation. When you wrote “in relation to the Trinity ... I think we understand more about that subject and its reasonableness than some mathematical theories that inexplicably describe an aspect of reality” you apparently have in mind what I called mathematical models of PHYSICAL (or material) reality. Perhaps at the most fundamental level, material reality can actually be DEFINED as that part (or feature) of reality that is open to mathematical modeling, i.e. where mathematics is useful. (ctd)

(ctd) This would include superstrings or the multiverse: they either exist as part or feature of our material world, or do not exist at all (like aether or phlogiston). I think mathematical theories have nothing to do with the Christian concept of Trinity and its understanding; as you know, even St Augustine had problems with this. Christian models of the Ultimate reality (in some way including the material reality but, we believe, not reducible to it) can be seen as “unreasonably effective”, however on quite different levels (metaphysical, psychological, cultural, etc.) as disputed as this effectiveness is by outsiders. The “outsiders” who do not want to accept (or understand) the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics can simply be ignored, they do not count in our understanding of the material world. However, those outsiders who cannot see the effectiveness of Christianity should not be ignored, they are part of that effectiveness, as I see it, and should be taken into consideration both at the rational level - to strengthen or amend our beliefs - and on the psychological level - to strengthen or amend our understanding of ourselves.

Keiran, I think I have to apologize for some clumsy expressions of mine. I just could not understand what you wrote in your last posting, and the fact that I cannot understand what most postmodernists write does not mean, of course, that you have anything in common with them. Thank you for your sincere personal words. Believe me, I am trying to understand you, especially your use of the word “play” - or is it rather something like “toy” or “play around” with words, ideas? There could be something to it, but only to a point, sooner or later your thoughts have to find their home and you peace of mind. I certainly do not see you as a transgressor, unless you wish to provoke (e.g. by using the term “transcend” to indicate almost the opposite of what it is usually reserved to in metaphysics) and want to be seen as such. Is your domain of expertise close to psychology or biology?

I see some truth in George's point about faith chasing understanding versus understanding chasing faith. But that is not quite how I have seen my quest. Rather, I see things in terms of a closed or open attitude towards knowledge discovery. Herein, testing, both belief and disbelief requires a vista not a shoe box. Despite the hundreds of posts by now since the "How doe God Exist" article, I feel no-one has justified "a priori" posits.

I have never been anti-religion (s). Religion (a) aided the transformation from more primitive organisational forms to the establishment of the first City-States in Sumer and beyond, and, (b) supplied the template of the notion of "design". This valuable contribution should be recognised. However, a few thousand years from now, I suggest, our descendants will look upon Religion having been developmentally significant to our societies (c. 5000 BCE - 2200 CE) but redundant (to them). Likewise, I do not "oppose" Sells, nor, similarly, would I condemn the New Guinea Cargo Cults of the 1940s.

The existence of religion is undisputed.

God? Well, that is another story worthy of investigation. But, religion is the wrong starting point, as there is too great a tendency towards acquiesence bias, narrow citations, a priori posits and entrenched convictions. "Is the Pope a Catholic?". Yes. NOTHING is going to change that. Gods and godheads have become intertwined in our history and encaptured by religionists and self-confirming worships. This comment is not a anti-religionism, instead, a diagnois of condition.

George and Kieran,

Thank you for your past contributions and views.

Oliver, thank you for this posting of yours which I could understand better than some of the previous ones. You use words like quest, discovery etc. which seem to indicate that you are moving strictly within the realm of science, using scientific methods. However, you cannot find God - whatever understanding you have of Him - this way, otherwise all atheists would have to be seen as ignorant (like those who deny the existence of electrons, bacteria or Alpha Centauri). They are not, they just look - if they look at all - in the wrong places. “Do not go afar: seek within thyself. Truth resides inside of man.” (St. Augustine) or more explicitly “Truth descends only on him who tries for it, who yearns for it, who carries within himself, preformed, a mental space where the truth my eventually lodge” (Ortega y Gasset). As concerns such basic beliefs as are part of religious faith, science can only illuminate what you have found, be it a belief in (the Christian model of) God or a belief in something else or a belief in nothing. Science (or history, or philosophy, etc.) can give your faith a new quality, a new dimension but it can neither prove nor disprove something as basic as that, the ground of all existence. Like you cannot prove or disprove axioms: you accept them (within a given system) or reject them. Therefore, I was also somewhat surprised - I have to admit - that Peter was scared of this extra dimension that science (notably physics) can give his faith (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=439).

"This means that bodily life is to be taken seriously and never as a preparation for real life in a disembodied heaven." - Sells

The above dichonomy is also present in one Christian belief with which I would differ, that the temporal exists, within the orbit of the moon and heaven is outside the moon's orbit [Van Doreen]. Contrarily, secularists deny this posit. For four hundred years, in the secular world, it has been held that comets would have broken the celistial spheres; notably, the claimed supra-luna barrier claimed by Christians to exist between Earth and Heaven.