Sells et al, the question I asked was drawn directly from the articles’ title relating to religious knowledge. “Can we please have an example of religious knowledge, or if you prefer it, “knowing”?

Much effort is being expended by you on demanding justification for the perspective of others yet you seem incapable of explaining you own. Do we take your inability or reluctance to offer any answer to this very simple question as a “no can do”?

Strike one to the unwashed?

My point about the Trinity is that the understanding of the Triune God, far from being “Largely irrelevant to any serious discussion about anything” is the absolute centre of Christian theology that makes most of the comments on these pages irrelevant. The atheists want to stick with simple monotheism because it is such an easy target. The theists want to stick to it because they think that belief in a supernatural being is foundational.

Walk into any liturgical church and you will find that the first words said are likely to be “In the name of the Father, and he Son and the Holy spirit.” In Protestantism the Trinity was largely eclipsed until Karl Barth rescued it in the early 20th C. It was always a fixture for Catholics and the orthodox although in depth discussion about it was discouraged. (Relda: Tillich’s theology, as far as I know is not trinitarian and is therefore impossible)

Simple monotheism does not mesh any gears. It is almost irrelevant whether we believe in such a God or not. The Trinity, however is the basis of systematic theology that establishes the gospel in the hearts , minds and actions of believers. It structures the past, present and future of faith and is thus a solution to the problem of transiency. It places Christ as the object of faith, an historical figure who was “crucified under Pontius Pilate” and projects the effect of his life and death into the future by the Spirit.

Christian talk about God is always Triune, otherwise it is mere paganism. The reason I take a back seat in the comments is that I find so little to comment on. Theological discussion has moved on since it was all about whether God existed or not, that was what the death of God movement was all about. We are alone in the universe, but something happened in our history that is a source of real hope.
Peter Sellick

Dear Sells,

The Trinity is simply a denial of monotheism. God has to share his role with two other personages - a quasi-human and a Holy Ghost. About 2,000 years ago there were Temples dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, etc. Many of the following features were common in those beliefs:

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.
(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.
(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.
(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator,
Savior, Deliverer.
(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to
the Heavenly world.
(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples
were received by Baptism.
(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals

The Holy Ghost, like Zeus impregnated a human female.

You have chosen Trinity over belief in God. That's ok with me. One may choose to believe in any nonsense one wishes to as long as he doesn't hurt anybody else. Only common sense is outraged.

Peter,
I most sincerely suggest that you read the work of Daniel Dennett on "Intentional Stance".
In summary :-
"Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in most instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that is what you predict the agent will do." (DD)

Of all the religious people I have had anything to do with you fit this scheme the best. Your god is the God(s) of the Trinity. You will squeeze this concept into any shape that you care to. If you wish it to fit then it will.

Thank you for writing your articles. You are giving me endless hours of entertainment and I (unlike others) encourage your efforts. You put your ideas out there and that is a thing I admire.

george and blue cross:

i consider to compare my silly musings to the sense of a dog is an insult to the dog.

sells:

>> If commentators could get over their own particular hobby horses

so advises the king of the cowboys.

sells, people, including me, wrote directly in response to what you wrote. you gave not a single word in response to anyone. it is hilarious that you should return now to whine about the thread meandering elsewhere.

yeah, yeah, we all miss the subtlety of your theological musings. we're not worthy of you. or, maybe, what you wrote was actually silly, or so poorly worded that no one could actually figure out what the hell you meant.

but i'm willing to listen. please, explain that "man and woman" thing to me.

squeers, you're latest posts are a bit scattered.

*) first, i don't mean it to be a "which side are you on" thing. if you're an atheist who thinks dawkins is wrong in the extent of his condemnation of religion, that's fine. i just want you to argue it.

what i see is dawkins considered as the easy target, what al gore is for the AGW deniers. it doesn't mean he's not an amateur, that he doesn't get things wrong. but i want to make him less easy, less the target of quick snide remarks. i want people to pinpoint what dawkins says with which they disagree. as you'll notice, people are declining to do so. it suggests that people are much more agreeing with dawkins' critics than they are disagreeing with what they've actually read of dawkins.

*) i don't know what you mean by "mysticism". i have no trouble with people trying to make sense of the world, and i very much doubt dawkins does either. i don't see that dawkins is advocating or exemplifying anything like the "bloodless rationalism" to which eagleton refers.

there's good reason to be scared or confused, of death, of meaninglessness and smallness. religion is clearly a mechanism to try to come to terms with this, in better and worse ways.

but, making stuff up doesn't help. jesus wrote great things about being human amongst other humans. but pretending jesus is god doesn't help. pretending the bible is, well, god-given doesn't help.

*) you don't believe most christians believe silly things? you think most don't believe jesus is god, or at least a third of him? the bible isn't holy?

*) criticism of religion is not even remotely religious censorship. rather, you should be querying the special legal protections for religious belief.

*) yes, fundamentalism exists outside of religion as well. but your quoting eagleton's example of global capitalism is telling. i'm as wary of free-market fundamentalism as anyone, but they're not making stuff up. capitalism has a solid core of both truth and success. eagleton, you, are claiming the same for religion?