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.