George,

In some respects I tend to take a strong cue from social scientist, Peter Berger, where, in the context of religiously reflective people, they need to become his or her own theologian, so to speak. Or as Berger aptly puts it, theology should not be left to professional theologians alone. I think you’d probably tend to agree with this, with your generally non-dogmatic assertions. I also side with Berger where he finds little appeal toward “New Age” religious seekers of what he calls “The Mythic Matrix,” so defined as a childlike belief in the one-ness of God, nature, and man.

I guess I find Sobottka generally helpful in his insight, whether Hindu based or not. Where he says, “Reality is not something that can be conceptualized or described, but it can be pointed to” and, “Enlightenment, or awakening, is the natural result of spiritual evolution”, perhaps merely paraphrases theologians such as Tillich and Chardin.

Berger finds the machinations of professional theologians about the Christian Trinity (God, Son, Holy Spirit), and the historical Christian controversies over the heresies of Arianism, Adoptionism, Marcionism, and Marianism to be a dull and unimportant – here he reflects an important intuition of the ‘laity’. Since certainty is a “social construction,” all of life is a religious enterprise of sorts beyond the confines of institutionalised religion.

Importantly, morality is perceptual. The historical record shows that some of the greatest religious figures engaged in really dubious behavior (Luther the anti-semite), some were downright monstrous (Medici Popes) – while agnostics and atheists have been morally admirable. There are atheist saints. So I find theology as more helpful - not 'the all and end all.'

To the certitude purveyors and certainty wallahs, scripture is inspiring, but not inerrant, religious experience of the ‘Holy Spirit’ has been found to be inducible by social psychological manipulation, and totalistic religious institutions can be replaced by totalistic secular institutions (e.g., big tent politics). Fortunately, I don’t believe you ascribe to the certainty as above.

Grim,

Sorry for the delay in reply, but from what I’ve learned in the last couple of weeks, my amateurish scientific knowledge is in desperate need of updating. The correction you made to my post is over 10 years old. How embarrassing!

Your comment: “I'm afraid I'm still inclined to say, 'so what?'” is spot on, and as my last post showed, it is irrelevant to point out that that it was theists that started modern science.

I’ll give Dan the benefit of the doubt though, and assume he didn’t read that bit since he was so upset at the time.

Dan,

It looks like Sells has started another thread in which we can continued our conversation so please be ready. I still have that lingering question I have to ask you. Personally I think the “Greater good” argument is the best - as shaky as it is.

relda,
When the sociologist of religion Peter Berger says that theology should not be left to theologians alone, this is like the physicist Paul Davies saying that “science offers a surer path to God than religion” (meaning probably also theology). Something like when my PhD supervisor joked that algebra was too important to be left to the algebraists alone.

I think theologians - institutional or “free-thinking” - deserve this criticism, not theology. In my generation there was a lot of frustration by mathematical physicists about how pure mathematics was taught, and we deserved the criticism. However, this did not imply that pure mathematics - as the theoretical backbone of mathematical physics - was not necessary for a better understanding of (physical) reality. I think theology is also in some sense the theoretical (rational) backbone of the Christian understanding of reality beyond the physical. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>“Reality is not something that can be conceptualized or described, but it can be pointed to” <<
Concepts can also “point to reality”. True, mystics cannot and should not conceptualise the subject of their experience. However, I cannot imagine how a scientist can “point to physical reality” without using concepts (Sobottka uses a lot of them in his survey of quantum physics). Theology attempts to point to that part/feature of reality that is beyond the scientific/mathematical horizon - by working from scripture, tradition and probably also pure speculation - through conceptualisation. Of course, like everything else, it can be exaggerated, the symbolic concepts too rigidly applied to what they are supposed to just point to. Oriental thinkers rightfully remind us of this. Nevertheless, conceptual thinking plays an important role not only in science.

The dogma (axiom) e.g. about Trinity tells us a lot about not the Unfathomable itself (that is beyond our grasp), but about our (Christian) understanding of it. It is a model that gave rise to a rich variety of insights into how our culture (religion) sees, and tries to make sense of, that Unfathomable.

However, I think I am already repeating myself.

Morality in “Christian theory“ as against failures in praxis by Christians, within or without the Churches, is a completely different problem, only marginally related to the here discussed relation of epistemology and ontology.

George,
Firstly, I think we can separate faith from religion/ theology (even if related). Berger describes religion as a social enterprise, where neither belief nor unbelief is a moral failing. Here, I believe he quite correctly distinguishes religion from faith, however, he does say that the step of faith (religious) is not a delusion or an act of cowardice from the harshness of the realities of life, a la Karl Marx’s view of religion as an “opiate,” or Sigmund Freud’s notion of religion as a neurotic delusion. Berger, rather non-judgmentally, instead writes that the act of religious faith compels one to be able to explain why one is willing to take a step beyond certainty.

Different conceptions, not only of the term "God" but also the terms "proof", "truth" and "knowledge" arise – even if Tillich and Davies were each able to compare their definitive interpretation, we’d continue to see a differing perspective. So, from Davies viewpoint where, “science offers a surer path to God than religion” there can be a reasonable understanding where “God” is taken to mean “Consciousness” or pure “pure Awareness.”

The “understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided in a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. ‘Religious belief from ‘revelation’ or ‘enlightenment’ (satori) falls in the second, a priori class of "knowledge" – this certainly isn’t science, but nevertheless, forms an essential part of Reality.
..cont’d

cont’d…
Nondualistically, the name of God is "I AM". I AM is both transcendent God and immanent God, both pure Awareness and pure Presence. God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” - Exodus 3

Sobottka quotes a part of John 14: “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you” The “other Counselor”, or ‘Holy Spirit’, he says is a “spiritual intuition which few know (it cannot be seen with the world’s eyes), but it can be known by all who want to. (Spiritual intuition, not blind belief, is the true meaning of faith.)”

According to What the Buddha Taught (1974) by Walpola Rahula “Almost all religions are built on faith - rather ‘blind’ faith it would seem. But in Buddhism emphasis is laid on ‘seeing’, knowing, understanding, and not on faith, or belief ... However you put it, faith or belief as understood by most religions has little to do with Buddhism. The question of belief arises when there is no seeing - seeing in every sense of the word. The moment you see, the question of belief disappears.”

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). I would not confuse this with science or Buddhism, either, for that matter – but neither does it contradict them. It is neither esoteric nor observable but something that, in essence, strikes me as universal. Some regard this all as merely mayonnaise – nevertheless it is reasonable to say that I, along with you and others, do believe it has substance.