Squeers,
Thanks for the insightful words. Am I wrong thinking that you are somewhat inclined towards (philosophical) postmodernism (Derrida, Lyotard, Rorty)? As I understand them they represent the gulf - actual or imagined - between C. P. Snow’s two cultures. See also the “science wars” of the 1990s.

I have to admit I am not that familiar with the writings of Charles Taylor, so I would be grateful if you could provide the exact quote where he suggests that also ontology needs “strong sources” (As a Catholic, he could be expected to call his preference religious ontology.) I am asking for this not to oppose what you wrote, but to learn.

Also, I did not understand what you meant by “civilisation should be based on "strong [humanitarian] sources" to which it "adheres" steadfastly”. When the West was in fact Christendom, the sources that it “adhered to steadfastly” - for better or worse - where the ethical (and ontological if you like) Christian principles as proclaimed by the Church. What do you understand by humanitarian principles, including ontology, that today’s globalised world should adher to? (On the ethics level e.g. Hans Küng is suggesting something he calls World-ethos.) And who, what organisation, should proclaim, uphold them?

I am not sure how ontology or ethic could “nurture a race of paragons”. Humanity will hopefully further evolve (unless it self-destructs), due to the driving force of evolution, (whether or not one accepts an additional explanation offered by Christianity). And it will have its - individual based AND society/community based - ontology, epistemology and ethics.

>>Humans have an addiction for models ... Pure fantasy. I just don't believe it. <<
I can understand this only as meaning you do not believe religious models (myths, sacred texts, theology) point to something really existent. Fair enough. However, I do not think you can dismiss models (visual, conceptual, mathematical, computational) of physical reality without which there would be no science, no technology.

jeez louise.

george, if you don't want to play that's fine. but your nice metaphor is obviously not a response to what was a clear and fair question. i don't care if you want to play with arithmetic (literal) or with algebra (non-literal). what i'm calling you on is pretending you can do the two simultaneously. you're now just being a carnival con man, slipping the ball back into the other cup. this is a completely standard religious con – sellick par excellence – and i don't know why you think i'll fall for it here.

mary was a virgin or she wasn't. 0 or 1. that's the arithmetic.

it seemed an arithmetic equation for which you believed an answer. for me, an astonishing answer. now you plead innocence: "no, i'm an algebraist".

you want to play with algebra instead? fine. i'll then question the power of your algebra, ask how and why it is applied to clarify your world view.

but none of that negates the arithmetic. and, if you want to play the metaphor further, abstract algebra, whatever its power, cannot eventually be evaluated on natural numbers (people, mary) to prove 0 = 1.

you can claim mary = 0, or you can claim mary = 1, or you can say "i don't know" or "i don't care". but you cannot have both. and you cannot have either and pretend that your choice does not affect other equations.

Faith Bushbasher... FAITH!

People can blather on about ontology, post-modernism, theological models, or arithmetic and dig up philosphers 'til the cows come home, but all this belief is based on blind faith.

Behind the pontificating, extended words, phrases and intellectualising, lies a blind belief that must never be challenged, or, is allowed to be challenged, so long as it reaffirms the blind faith at the end.

My sister-in-law, a convert to the Vatican, visited Lourdes to be able to throw her crutches away- so sure was her 'faith' in Jesus that this would happen.

Naturally, she returned short of pennies from travelling and having to buy a slimmer wheelchair for her airline passage, still on her crutches-as expected- but with her 'faith' even more Araldited onto her glamour snaps of Jesus, the Pope and Pell totally oblivious to the scam.

Only Pell and Danny Nahlia believe (and sister in law) Mary was a virgin, although even the sternest critic must admit she was once.

There seems to be a view on this thread that some believe in, even hanker for, the time when we were all 'OK' with the Church reigning over us all, with God above, naturally, years ago, and that it is this dreaded 'secularism'- generally misapplied to be code for 'atheism', particularly by Pell, Wallace and Nalia-like renewalists that has undone us all today.

But they cannot have it both ways.

So many of our Western community and political leaders boast openly about their 'faith',(Clintons, Bushes, Blair, Howard, Rudd, George (Golden) Brown et al., not to mention 'them' from the 'God's chosen people' and the Islamic, so-called 'moderates' (touch of Orientalism creeping in there?) right up to the Taliban stoneagers including all the leaches from the 'priestly class' of all so-called 'faiths', yet there is scant evidence that they, any of them, can show the slimest regard for honesty, compassion, or even a skeric of 'love' towards the underclass that they so happily create and keep at the lowest rungs of society- ours in the West and 'theirs' in Orientalismland.

Well said Blue Cross

<< Behind the pontificating, extended words, phrases and intellectualising, lies a blind belief that must never be challenged, or, is allowed to be challenged, so long as it reaffirms the blind faith at the end. >>

On the topic of religious sophistry and intellectualising, Relda and George run rings around Sells - probably because they are courteous. But their underlying message is the same: "My belief is the 'right' belief, my version of spiritualism means I am in a morally superior place to others who do not believe as I do."

I am happy for the Georges & Reldas to believe as they do - clearly it is a source of comfort and support (and great for English expression), however, as I have said to Sells many a time, that belief does not confer greater status or moral high-ground, nor does it give the right to cast aspersions on non-religious people simply for not holding religious beliefs.

George,

The basic idea behind laying all the trinities and other characteristics out on the table is that it permits one to see the “bigger picture”. Were mathematicians to believe that the only Base is ten, this would have implications for Computer Science, which relies on Bases two and sixteen. Likewise, the Base 60 was productive for the Mayans, because 60 is highly divisible.

In the case of Sells, upbringing, experience and social reinforcement have likely acted to narrow his perspectives down to one god, without truly considering the possibility of an alternative god or else that, belief in gods, is a societal contrivance. He has become super-circumscribed, wherein there is a methodological predisposition to accept the Christian Trinitarian Godhead, a priori, before any cross-theistic assessment.

Even if one wishes to lean towards theism, it is logical to dispassionately review data in the greater rather than lesser scope. Relatedly, the set which is the Christian Trinity is smaller than the set of all trinities, the set of all religions having trinities is smaller than the set of all religions having gods, and the set of all gods is smaller than the set of all possible creation agents. Herein, unless Sells is a very good guesser, it is likely that a super-set of all possible creators will yield a better result than a sub-set populated by one class of creator (god). The super-set contains more wrong answers; yet, at the same time, more possibilities.

On the issue of superiority, contrary to your comment, one might find that homogeneity points to normalisation over superiority, wherein religions having common components, could be found to be not as distinct, as their priests claim.

“The doctor who gives his/her opinion about your or my health …” – George

Yet, medical diagnosis goes beyond labelling everyone as suffering from consumption. If a Chemist stayed confined to the Inert Gases, perhaps, this would be ok, if all we do is produce light bulbs (where electron shells are stable), yet what if we need hydrogen to burn or need gold as a commodity? We must read the suite.

I must say that as a socio-political Mature Age historian, all I asked for was comments on how Constantine is said to have been declared Saintly after his death by means of a still hidden parchment called the Donation of Constantine to enable Christianity to influence humanity by war, and not by what Jesus is said to have taught in His Sermon on the Mount, than Understanding and Compassion.

While certainly one should pray for it as a Christian - must say because I tend to believe more in hope for Wisdom and Understanding than in faith, I guess most Christians will count me out