Pericles... it occurs to me that Sells is very insecure in his 'faith', which explains his rather-too-many ark-tickles here, which are really more about seeking affirmation from us, the OLO readership, that he is 'on the right track'.

Who knows whether he is or not, or any of us for that matter?

And does it really matter?

But that might also explain why Sells doesn't quite understand the point you are, quite reasonably, making, methinks.

There's no end to the nonsense some people believe is 'reality', howsoever constructed.

Take, for instance, the renewalist loonies who believe in serpents implanted in the chests of sinners, or those Hillsongsters who cast out demons (for cash, extra charge for credit cards), or the Wheel of Fire crew Danny Nahlia leads and Peter Costello, Rudd's new mate, so trusts.

Just can't wait to learn what Joe Hockey is going to say about his 'deep faith', tonight apparently, as he gives the unthinking public a reason to cheer him on as the next 'natural' leader of the (Neo)Liberals.

Will it be any more 'together' than a Sells contribution?

Or will the 'real' Holy Trinity kick in, 'lies, damn lies, and religion' as yet another pollie succumbs to this most modern of afflictions, 'declaring one's faith' to show real suitability for office?

Will Hockey mention 'The Trinity'?

If he fails to, will Sells angonise over it?

These are 'real' questions that Sells might want to address afterwards.

Pericles assumes that empirical perception is the only mode of human perception and on this basis rejects Sells’ comments about both the Trinity and the periodic table being social constructs. Thus he writes that the Trinity “may refer to ‘some reality’ held to be so by an individual already committed to the concept. But that is not at all the same ‘reality’ that creates the concept of atomic weight, which may be observed, and - just as importantly - consistently measured.”

I hearken back to my earlier post (1st November 1.58:46 pm) in this thread about sensation and intuition as opposite but equally valid modes of perception. If a number of individuals experience – through their relationships, contemplations of works of art, reading of history, dreams, meditation, participation in liturgy or whatever activity – phenomena that they agree are usefully represented by a symbolic construct such as the Trinity, the resulting concept is indeed a social construct.

So Pericles rejection of Sells’ observations is unjustified. It seems to be an example of the sort of scientism that George and Squeers have been discussing. I must agree with Squeers that the “two cultures” scenario of the 1960s is today raging in reverse. I remember, as an EngLit student at the time, the imbroglio in which Snow and F.R. Leavis clashed as representatives of the two camps. I could not see any reason why arts and sciences could not co-exist fruitfully, each in its own way valuable to humanity. Similarly there is no reason why spirituality and religion today cannot today fruitfully co-exist with sciences – provided of course the fundamentalists in each are reined in.

crabsy,
>>I'm not sure why you quoted the Wikipedia<<
Because I am not that familiar with Matthew Fox’s theology, and the formulation “All things are in God and God is in all things” sounded like neglecting the transcendence/immanence duality, especially when preceded by “the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe is false”. Sorry, if I misunderstood you or Fox.

It is also interesting that the physicist/theologian John Polkinghorne sees the panentheistic model as “an eschatological destiny rather than as a present reality.” (http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm). See also his detailed discussion of the concept in ‘Faith, Science and Understanding’ , SPCK 2000, pp. 89-95, where he speaks of “the tantalising ambiguities that seem to plague pannentheistic discussions.” It is probably not that easy to find the proper balance between the two extremes: traditional overemphasis on transcendence, and pantheism. I am somewhat ambiguous about that.

I agree, there is no reason why spirituality and religion cannot co-exist with sciences: the problem is with those who see their religion as ersatz-science and those who see their science as ersatz-religion: there are scientists on both sides of the theist/atheist divide, and there are theists (and atheists) on both sides of the C.P. Snow divide, as I wrote above.

Pericles,
I agree there is a difference between a social constructivist approach to science (Thomas Kuhn, but mainly his postmodernist followers) and such approach to religion or theology.

I also agree that the "some reality" Sells refers to is not at all the same "reality" that creates the concept of atomic weight (except that there are much more abstract concepts also in mathematical physics where it is hard to understand what “reality” they refer to).

Nevertheless, I don’t think Sells “looks really silly when he exposes (his faith) to the rest of the world”, so that some of us, who share - or at least understand - his world-view perspective can discuss the matter, and agree or disagree with him. If somebody’s post looks silly to me, I just ignore it, don’t even finish reading it.

Sells,

My comments regarding religions (including trinities) and elements suggested that one could assign religions on a categorical scheme and that the religions could be grouped like the elements on the periodic table. In your reply, you state the Christian Trinity mirrors the historical development of the periodic table. Herein, we are talking at cross-purposes:

Peter, you are comparing ousia to quarks. I am mapping religions against other religions, of which, Christianity is one example. You compare “The” Trinity to an atom. I compare trinities to trinities (atoms to atoms).

Moreover, Uncertainty in QM aside, reality expressed in the period table is different to the subsistences expressed in religions’ trinities.

By assigning religions (and the trinities and/or other beliefs) to a scheme, one might see Christianity as a “religion”, i.e., a non-divine construct and a theological contrivance. Please note I am using the term “religion” in an unfamiliar manner here. Here religions are patterns of behaviour having many cases like the stars in the sky. In fact, the stars in the sky can be categorised by age, magnitudes, mass and luminosities, as religions might assign creation stories, gods have sons, messengers to Earth and resurrections etc.

The religions are like Darwin’s finches sharing many characteristics.That is why these birds are called, “finches” in the first place. Yet, the beaks and eating habits are different. Religions are religions because they share characteristics too. If all the Abrahamic faiths are religions, in the way I have used the word (a human faith), then these beliefs are in the same class, religion. At a fundamental level religions are undifferentiated. Herein, would a true God with an important message adopt a human convention and be drowned in a sea of false similarities and theistic static? Surely, a true god would stand apart.

Uncertainty in QM aside, reality expressed in the period table is different to the subsistences expressed in religions’ trinities. The former can be measured with instruments, whereas the latter cannot.

Dear Oliver,

I think it would be a mistake to group religions by characteristics which they share such as the Trinity. One can group finches in that manner because they have a common ancestor. Organisms have similar characteristics to other organisms for two main reasons. They may have a common ancestor as the finches and primates do or they may have similar characteristics due to similar functions such as wings in bats, birds and insects.

Religions also have a syncretic nature. They absorb concepts from other religions as they absorb practitioners and customs of other religions. I think the simplest explanation of the presence of a trinity in Christianity is that early Christianity absorbed believers in the mythological Trinity or Triad of Osiris, Horus and Isis as well as believers in other of the pagan trinities.

Determining the origins of these beliefs is almost impossible as believers in later times such as Sellick deny the syncretic nature of their religion and will ascribe ideas such as the Trinity to supernatural revelation.

An Anglican clergyman said to me. “I hate syncretism.” Syncretism is a natural process in the development of religions. What he hated was its reality.

Religions like other human institutions grow because they fulfill a function in society. This function may be applicable to only a portion of society. In the case of Christianity it is an ideal religion to serve governmental control. The temporal ruler is considered a terrestrial representative of the divine ruler. Therefore the temporal ruler will encourage a belief that will entrench him more securely. It will take a while, but I think Christianity divorced from temporal power will eventually die out as educated humans will more and more reject the associated mythology. Of course Christianity fulfills other needs. They may be enough to keep it viable.

It think it more useful to study religions on the basis of what social function they serve rather than the common character of their mythology.

Wilson’s “Darwin’s Cathedral” and Boyer’s “Religion Explained” examine religion on that basis

Dear David f,

I agree. Perhaps, I should not have given the “finch” example. It can confuse. My higher-order point is that if everything is laid-out and categorised logically, what emerges is a penchant to produce and borrow and (as you noted) fuse religions, herein, historians refer to the Axial Age, the Alexandrian God Factories and the Abrahamic religions. Likewise, The Australian aboriginal clans traded ceremonies and stories (TV documentary).

I do see the categorisation of religion important, but again agree the kernel is social function. I mention the former because it allows a helicopter view and tends to negate special revelation.

Were Sells his dot as part of a total picture, he might step back and see the full picture from across the room.

Sells, speaks of “The” (definite article) Trinity, whereas to say “a” trinity would be more correct in history. Maybe, sells should say the Latin Christian Trinity?

The polytheists were often adept at syncretion. Key persons among the invaders would marry into the royal and leading families and the gods would be melded to keep the hoi polloi happy. The polytheistic religions seemed to tend to converge, whereas the monotheistic religions split and tree. That is not to say that syncretion did not happen around Nicaea and some important councils. Creed is important to leadership, because once we have Creed, the syncretions are forgotten and denied in Christianity. Early Christian leaders acted like some Egyptian leaders, but instead of swapping the names on Steles and Temples, the Christians destroyed the evidence of rivals: e.g. other gospels, Mithras and the Serapis Trinity .

Alternatively, the Ancient Romans would have been aware of syncretion and parallelisms with the more Ancient Greeks.

You also allude to intercession is an important characteristic across religions and to the power of religion, whether it is a priest in Sumer administering “God’s” land or the Vicar of Christ. I feel your point is valid.