I believe the existence of absolutes is most likely,but is inconvenient and disagreeable to our egos. People nowadays are often motivated not to believe in absolutes, because if there are true absolutes, then we are responsible to the absolute.(...)When I looked for absolutes, I discovered there weren't many. I believe it comes down to three: Monism, Dualism, and Trinitarianism.
No, this makes no sense to me at all.
quote:So lets figure out what Potter means when he claims these three absolutes.
Ellis Potter writes:
If science is the measure of everything, you have scientism. If the human being is the measure of everything,you have humanism.
Personally, the way you guys carry on around here, I see you as accepters of scientism.
I don’t think that my views would be fairly classified as either. Some things should be science-centred. Others should be human-centred.
Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy writes:
There are many monisms. What they share is that they attribute oneness. Where they differ is in what they attribute oneness to (the target), and how they count (the unit).
The article gets deep, but does not address Potters insistence that there are only 3 basic absolutes: Oneism Twoism Threeism.
Then it’s likely that Potter is using his own private definitions. And without those we can’t discuss his work.
I have to say the idea that the Trinity are three separate Gods is not one that orthodox Christianity accepts. But if they are really only one God isn’t that a form of what Potter calls monism ?
(I wonder how much Potter is influenced by Hindu belief. The Hindu Trimurti is usually presented as three Gods - at least in Western material - even if they are thought to be aspects of one The Christian Trinity is far more explicit about them being one God).
The identification of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purāṇa, wherein 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme
I have to say that Potter looks like another apologist with nothing of great value to say.
quote:Christians have never been able to clearly explain the concept of the Trinity, but the idea of God being unified(Monotheistic) yet also diversified(Father and Son) cant really be explained any better...dont you think?
I think that doubling down on the contradiction makes a dubious concept even worse.
The contradiction should be obvious. You can’t have something that is completely separate and completely unified. Taking it to that level as Potter does is such an obvious contradiction I can’t take it seriously.
Because they are opposites. It’s like being absolutely identical and completely different.
quote:One obvious example that comes to mind is the family unit
Which is neither completely separate nor completely unified. I’m not talking about mere aspects of both, but of totality. The family unit is not a hive-mind with a single will, in a single body and never will be.
And for any way in which they are unified they are not separate. Those are opposites.
Re: Some of the best questions and answers from the book.
I don’t think that his “circles” even do a good job of capturing the underlying beliefs. There is a lot of room for nuance and divergence.
And the whole “my beliefs are best!” implicit in it is - well, probably the point, but it’s rather distasteful at best. The more so unless it’s really rigorously justified with painstaking fairness, and I’m not seeing that. At all.
Also, it’s a rather sad commentary on Christianity that acknowledging that non-Christians can do good is even an issue. That it has to be justified with dodgy talking of “completeness”, to try and say that Christians are still better just shows that the problem is still there.
So, I don’t think that they are really good questions. And the answers aren’t that great either. (Well, the second question is worth asking, I guess, but the fact that it is worth asking is a pretty severe indictment of Christianity).
quote:Perhaps you are an atheist because you cannot fathom God as a concrete entity.
quote:Personally I am much more comfortable with the idea of a Creator of all seen and unseen than I am with Quantum mechanics and Physics trying to configure an objective truth concerning the origin of the universe. Perhaps you are more evidence based and logical than I am and see no need for consideration of a Creator for which there likely never be evidence.
Religious claims to exclusive truth are ten-a-penny. At least science is honestly trying to understand reality, rather than to (at best) force fit it to pre-conceived ideas.