huh! god stole my post. maybe sellick is right!

squeers, i know you're not making stuff up. was just trying to get clear what you meant.

i don't think i agree with all you write. (i think boffins would refer to biology as an ultimate constraint, but don't know any who would talk of it as ultimate determinism). but i think i agree with the thrust. and in ways it seems to be the same driver as sellick's: what to do about meaninglessness.

there is no shortage of meaninglessness in the modern West. and, no shortage of fake meaning, notably insane consumerism. there seems no question that the hole left by shrinking churches is being at least partially filled with new nonsense, or simply unfilled. but that's no excuse for sellick et al attempting to refill the hole with arbitrary, old nonsense.

Answering two posts that mysteriously disappeared after the last crash:

bushbasher,
>>the definition of "religious knowledge" you quote is pretty weird. <<
Weird or not, this is the first definition google found for me in Wikipedia. There are many other descriptions and examples both by those who try to be objective, and those who do not even try. So I find it rather remarkable that you managed to check all the 255,000 entries that deal with “religious knowledge” - or at least the 11,000 that try to explain the difference from “scientific knowledge” - and did not find one that would satisfy you.

oliver,
Thanks for the stimuli for my thoughts.

1. What you describe is more comparative religion than anthropology but you still did not answer my question whether a non-atheist with “insider knowledge” (Polanyi’s indwelling) of one of the religions cannot be a professional anthropologist.

2. Love has many meaning, when you contrast it with hatred you are apparently referring to a psychological state of mind. People hate for different subjective reasons (see e.g. david’s last post), however it has almost nothing to do with the problem of evil that theodicy analyses (and which is a no-problem for an atheist).

>> Theodicy: Thanks for teaching me a new word <<
If theodicy is a new word for you you should be more careful with suggesting simple answers to the problem of evil. The same as somebody for whom algebraic topology is a new concept should be more careful about his/her understanding of the classification of geometrical shapes.

>>So did God cause the evil in the world?<<
To the child’s question “Since God is everywhere, is He also under my bed?” the only answer is yes. Frank Little, the late Archbishop of Melbourne once - when questioned about some moral positions - gave an answer which I think is a pattern that can be used to answer many simplictic questions: “If the only answers you can understand are yes or no then the answer must be no.” (ctd)

(ctd)
Like when a person who has not heard of algebra asks: “How can you teach children that (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2? Is it not true that you can add only numbers but not letters?” then the only answer he/she would understands is yes.

3. I agree that Dawkins is an excellent communicator. If he were a politician they would call him a populist, if he were religious they would call him a charismatic preacher. It is just that these qualities interfere with his reputation as a matter-of-fact scientist (c.f. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/how-richard-dawkins-commu_b_312208.html).

4. Strictly speaking, one does not define “God”, “existence”, “reality”, “truth”, “being” and other basic concepts. Every definition assumes that the other, more fundamental, concepts from which the definition is built have already been defined, or accepted as self-evident by those to whom the definition is supposed to make sense. This is hard with concepts as fundamental as the ones listed, and so they themselves are usually accepted as either self-evident or needing EXPLANATION rather than definition in the strict logical meaning of the word.

Such explanations (e.g. in dictionaries) are based on the hope that the terms used can be accepted by this or that thinker without needing further explanation. This, of course has its shortcommings. For instance, usually the “definition” of reality will use the verb exist, and vice-versa that of existence will contain the adjective real. Such circular “definitions” appear also with other basic concepts. Also, the explanation of the Christian understanding of a loving God will have to deal with the paradox of evil, the same as e.g. the self-explanatory (mathematical) concept of set has to deal with Russel’s paradox although this does not mean the concept is meaningless.

You probably could not call e.g. Hitler evil if he did not cause human suffering. So our paradox of evil actually concerns not so much this abstract concept but the question “why did God allow human suffering”. I do not think there is a satisfying answer to this, especially if you do not allow for afterlife, as I tried to explain in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564&page=0#153644.

No Sells, not “talking about religious knowledge”, you were specifically asked;

“Can we please have an example of religious knowledge, or if you prefer it, “knowing”?

This is the fourth posting of this question and you have yet to answer it. Many on OLO might be asking themselves why you refuse to respond to such a simple question about just the subtitle of your article.

We have to assume that as a PhD student you are a very intelligent person. That leaves us with only two possibilities, you can’t answer or you won’t answer. Which is it?

You wonder about anger and hate; you might want to substitute the word “frustration” for these. This may help you understand some of the responses you receive.

From my perspective I get very frustrated because you seek only the opportunity to proselytize whilst avoiding qualifying assumptions. You have placed much significance upon religious knowledge and yet failed to provide a single example. As a result, your article is reduced to verbiage with no substance. It is a worry that any university would award a PhD based upon content (a collection of information) rather than substance.

Let me give you a bolt hole. You can have “data” and you can have “information” but you “use” knowledge

Spindoc

"It is a worry that any university would award a PhD based upon content (a collection of information) rather than substance."

He's doing a PhD in 'theology' remember.

Studying a book of fables, myths, fibs, distractions, prevarications, lies and mumbo-jumbo, rewritten many times and selectively arranged to promote power through fear above understanding.

Sadly, there is no escape from your concerns about the content vs. substance in this area.

George,

Thanks.

(1) "What you describe is more comparative religion than anthropology but you still did not answer my question whether a non-atheist with “insider knowledge” (Polanyi’s indwelling) of one of the religions cannot be a professional anthropologist."

Yes, I citecomparative religion, yet from inside an objective discipline ,rather than a Bible school (or equivalents in other religions). Although, I know a guy who was a Minister, who became a non-theist, after studying comparative religion, within a theist school Master's degree. He still admires Jesus, though.

Yes, I believe say a non-theist formerly raised a Catholic can be a professional anthropoligist.

At OLO and when reading, I try to "indwell" in belief systems posit, to review other posits. Of cause, my tacit baggage will co-exist with explicit experiences, as tacit knowledge and personal knowledge are co-efficent. (Polanyi). That said, I doubt whether Sells would read Dawkins trying to "indwell", as best he can, as I might in the domain of the Bible.

I guess the objective cultural-anthrologist needs squash, as much as possible, personal tracit emotional, spread the religions out on the table (as I have said before) and dissect them and classify the objects. Again Sells would not write the headings Creation Story, Virgin Birth, After-life, Heaven and Messager from God on high on a sheet a paper and then list what the societies and religions have the same underlying forms.

The above exercise does not diprove the existence of god, of course. However, it might very well describe the penchant of societies to produce religions. This raises the issue of the origin of scripture: Is it Man or God? (Man is known to exist)

More to come. Still busy.