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).