My apologies to the forum, or at least those few foolish individuals who bother to read my drivel; I realise I have strayed slightly from the righteous path.
We were discussing ‘spirituality’ and my position was and is it isn’t necessary to morality. Here we strike the eternal problem of definitions. I don’t consider consciousness or self awareness to be spiritual. As a sceptic, I have to say spirituality is the ultimate in credibility, particularly for plebs like me.
Relda likes to quote the works of others, to demonstrate his credibility. George has mentioned he is a mathematician, Bushy is proud of his Uni degree, David f was once a physicist, I think he wrote. All very credible people.
I would love to live in a world where everyone’s opinions stood on their own merit, but even I wouldn’t qualify. Whenever I read an opinion which interests me (either evocatively or provocatively) I immediately rush to see if the writer actually knows what he is talking about, or is just philosophising.
Clearly I belong to the latter group.
But in the world of creeping credentialism, spirituality has to be a pearla. “You have a Phd? So what, I’M spiritual!”
I can very easily imagine Jesus coming off the Mount after a stirring sermon, and meeting his campaign manager (Judas). “Well yeah Jesus, that was a great speech an all, but mate. No one’s going to believe a carpenter, son of a carpenter has got all the answers. What you need, is to get SPIRITUAL. How bout you stop calling yourself the ‘Son of Man’ and start calling yourself the Son of God?”
“That’ll fa-fix ‘em!”
And if you want to get really spiritual, claim your religion is monotheistic, but believes in three Gods, wrapped up in one. That’s so inexplicable, it’s gotta be spiritual.

george:

>> As for “virgin birth” that is part of my religion, not biology

a) the VB is part of your religion AND of biology. sorry, but you simply cannot claim there are fatherless guys walking around and pretend it's got nothing to do with biology.

b) the VB was just a random example, and i wasn't delving for a target. but i'm frankly astonished at what you wrote. i honestly don't know how to respond further and maintain my minimum level of respectfulness.

david f:

>> I imagine the virgin birth and other dogma is something most Catholics don’t worry about.

a) i think that is very open to question

b) to borrow from donne: no myth is an island.

grim:

for what it's worth i'm not sure george mentioned here that he's a mathematician: that was me, and me (this time) who started all the maths stuff. and i can't remember discussing my own qualifications, nor david f his. i haven't paid close attention to relda's posts, but i presumed his (?) quotes stand or fall on their own terms. (the ruse one fell).

no question some people on this thread are well pleased with themselves (not me the least). but, and i could be wrong, the only argument-by-qualification i can remember on this thread was sellick's, who seemed to think that the existence of all those professors of theology proves something.

Squeers,
>>bland, albeit "necessary", "articles of faith", engender neither commitment nor tolerance as social norms; both are liable to abuse, witness the morass of modern culture.<<
Well put, except that my analogy with Euclidean axioms was on the level of ontology not ethics, where I would agree with Charles Taylor (and you?).

bushbasher,
>> the VB (“virgin birth”) is part of your religion AND of biology <<
Well, if that makes you more happy or self-assured, you might also make the biblical Genesis story part of my cosmology and astrophysics.

>> you simply cannot claim there are fatherless guys walking around<<
Please quote me where I claimed that.

>>i honestly don't know how to respond further and maintain my minimum level of respectfulness<<
Well, if you don’t I can’t help you, although respectfulness is not needed for my personal satisfaction but for a decent standard of discussions on this OLO in general. What about trying to be as respectful of us, as we are trying to be of those (including apparently you) who can understand the bible only in its literal, verbatim, form?

George,

No problem with regard the comment. I have on more than one occasion said something with an unintended tone. I have come to respect you, despite our different “worldviews”.

While an issue such as “afterlife” might be complex, a taxonomic scheme for classifying “afterlife” beliefs across various religious might be simple yet informative. Particle physics is complex. The Periodic Table, clever, yet compared to the former, simple.

“Do you mean to say that one has to be an atheist in order to be recognised as a scholarly anthropologist?” – George

Sorry, I misread and misanswered then. My true answer is, no. A theist or an atheist must be objective and willing to apply scholarly tools to theism and to atheism. Beliefs should not set-up a barrier to scholars applying their scholarly skills/techniques to their faith in belief or disbelief.

A quick topic search of only one academic database on “anthropology”, “religion” and “taxonomy” yielded thousands of results, of which the first three were:

- “A taxonomy on the aspects of anointing power” (Glazier 1999)
- “Folk taxonomy of Birds of Paradise in the New Guinea Highlands” (Healy 1993)
- “Taxonomy of emotions leading to religious insight” (Kaplan 2003)

My point to Sells over many posts is that if one lays religiosity out on the table, the relationship between say the Serapis Trinity to the Christian Trinity is structurally familiar as is the relationship between Neon and and Xeon. Sells will not recognize cross-religion similarities which implicitly suggest commonalities; whereas he would probably be quite happy to acknowledge similarities amongst dissimilar inert gases.

In a dramatization of Abelard and Heloise, Heloise was portrayed as good at asking hard questions and Abelard good at answering hard questions. (My wife and I have been to Père-Lachaise)

george:

> you simply cannot claim there are fatherless guys walking around<<

>> Please quote me where I claimed that.

"fatherless" in the sense of "no guy with dick to supply sperm".

>>What about trying to be as respectful of us,
>>as we are trying to be of those (including apparently you) who can understand the bible only in its literal, verbatim, form?

i'm definitely *not* trying to push a literal interpretation on to you, and definitely wasn't expecting you to give one.

but mary was a biological creature, a thing of flesh and blood. (Or am i being too literal?) so was jesus. (or am i being too literal?) the claim then that mary was a virgin is a claim with biological (and physical) implications. EVEN if you wish to argue that there was some miraculous divine insemination (? ?), there are biological implications. EVEN if you want to argue jesus was more than flesh and blood, was a third of god or whatever (? ?), there are biological implications.

George,
I'm talking ontology and ethics; Taylor suggests that both need "strong sources"--they cannot merely be based on notions of innate goodness or religious authority, but appeal broadly as compelling life rubrics. Taylor's preference is for a religious ontology.
My own, developing, position is that no set of rules will ever solve our problems, as humanity is "essentially" an omnium gatherum. By implication I suppose I'm suggesting that each individual does have an essence or individual bent whose growing media, culture, is the society of others and social infrastructure. These latter are not determinate, but merely influential, so no ontology or ethic will nurture a race of paragons. I would argue that, nevertheless, civilisation should be based on "strong [humanitarian] sources" to which it "adheres" steadfastly, thereby setting a genuine example. Similarly, good parenting is all about example; by saying one thing and doing another, we teach kids that principles are observed in the breech. This is precisely the problem at play in the world, religious and secular; all countries profess high sounding religious or secular principles, according to their lights, but act viciously.
Were we able to structure society around genuinely observed principles, demonstrably to the good, based on shared labour and material equality, there would still be miscreants and zealots and geniuses, but poor behaviour would at least be unexampled.
Pure utopia, of course.
As it is, I still suspect that individual bent is the main determinant of the human being; growth is then haphazardly dependent on fortune.
Humans have an addiction for models and patterns, to which we are all expected, ultimately, to conform. Pure fantasy. I just don't believe it. Life's a complete adventure for every individual--each one of us is a "host" of random and innate variables, and life's an inspired use of what's at hand.