I think the major issue is not 'God' per se, but the fact that so much of the cultural heritage and philosophy of the West was associated with the theistic tradition, that in the 'death of God', much else died with it. I think there was a grandiose idea amongst the Enlightenment philosophers of sweeping the slate clean and re-building all of our understanding on purely rational and empirical grounds, from first principles. You see that echoed in Locke's 'Tabula Rasa' and in many other places.

Another huge influence was Comte's idea of 'historical positivism', that society evolves through stages, commencing with primitive superstitious beliefs in sky-gods and totemic powers, through monotheistic religion, then the metaphysical stage, culminating in scientific awareness as the kind of zenith of historical development. However this was in some sense also unconsciously influenced by the Christian notion of the Eschaton; indeed Comte went so far as to create the Religion of Man (which still, strangely, persists in Brazil).

A lot of these currents of thought were discussed in a very dense book by Terry Eagleton, Culture and the Death of God, sitting right here next to my computer - a difficult read, but addresses this topic head on.

(But it is a huge topic - it's really been my major interest ever since beginning to post on forums, 8 years ago now. I was inspired/enraged by the 'new atheists', whose books had the exact opposite effect on me than Dawkins intended, saying that he wanted to write something that a theist would pick up, and put down an atheist. I thought it such an appallingly shoddy travesty of philosophical argument that I've been railing against it since.)

This thread does not seem very wise. Perhaps there is not God after all.

That the word is Theology, clearly rooted in pre-christian Greece, is in my opinion a clue that Theology is not about any conception of any version of a Christian God, either OT or NT. In terms of natural science, the study of the world, God is simply a name of the principle that everything appears to be rooted in some sort of unity. That the laws of physics are the same for apples and oranges and stars would seem to call out for an explanation for the unified and the universal application of those laws. To attribute it to "God" seems reasonable, the problems arising when ignorant people suppose this (particular) usage to denote something more and other than it does.

And then there are the gods of religions, whether one or many or triune. It seems to me that these must not only be supernatural gods, but necessarily supernatural gods. The idea of such being, nearly as I can tell, to retreat from and remain beyond reason and rationality. The instant such a god becomes natural - in any sense - he ceases to be a divinity.

Clearly conflating or confusing the two leads to confusion.

Heidegger lays out a further confusion that's revealed in his history of Being. In very brief form, it is that the efficacy of thinking about God (an idea) became the assertion of the reality of God for thinking. My conclusion is that on these terms, the claim that God exists is simply an metaphysical error made by folks who don't know any metaphysics.

But the history of metaphysics does indeed make space for an "actual" God, on the understanding that actual also applies to 2 and unicorns and does not mean (absent qualification) real or existing. That is, their existence/reality is not to be confused with natural existence/reality. Within this "horizon" religion has free play; after all, none of it is real! And to be sure, any substantial knowledge gained from thinking in the free play of religion has a right to be considered a part of Theology - "first wisdom."

Which "allows" the supernatural aspect of religion. The supernatural can be a short-cut to insight. But I am obliged to reckon the supernatural at best only a shortcut, the insight in every case being available to reason, although perhaps not in so facile a way.

But that can be a variant of the question of the OP: does the supernatural element of any religion provide any insight whatsoever that is unavailable to reason and that cannot be reached through reason?

Probably for many people, as a practical matter, the answer must be yes. They can't get there except through the supernatural. On the other hand, the verification of the insight is through reason, implying that the insight has grounds in reason and is there discernible in principle. If instead the only verification is through the supernaturalism, then the insight cannot be "first wisdom."

On the other hand, the verification of the insight is through reason, implying that the insight has grounds in reason and is there discernible in principle. — tim wood

Insights, at least poetic and religious insights (as opposed to, say, insight in the sciences) are sufficient unto themselves; in other words they are their own verifications, and no verification of them by anything outside them is possible.

The only sense in which it could be said they are "verified" by reason is insofar as we might give reasons for thinking that insights are their own verification; and this would be merely a secondary sense derivative of the insight itself.

God is always already dead in the de-liberations of most philosophers. Our knowledge may require unifying principles, but that is something different to God, or else you conflate wisdom with knowledge. As wisdom, God is an experience, God is within, knowledge on the other hand, is of externalities.

That the word is Theology, clearly rooted in pre-christian Greece, is in my opinion a clue that Theology is not about any conception of any version of a Christian God, either OT or NT. — tim wood

I think that's a bit simplistic. The early Christian Platonists had no trouble showing that the Unmoved Mover of the Greeks, or the One of Plotinus, amounted to the Greek conception of the same God that had revealed Himself in the Bible. Even a cursory study of the history of Christianity will show that the Greek-speaking Church Fathers, such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and the Orthodox Patriarchs, were all steeped in Platonism and incorporated a great deal of Platonist thought into theology.

The idea of such being, nearly as I can tell, to retreat from and remain beyond reason and rationality. — tim wood

But in the Augustinian tradition, God is not a 'retreat' from rationality, but its source. 'Beyond reason' is not equal to 'irrational'. And that is a very important point in understanding this issue. The supra-rational conception of God as the source of the rational order of things allowed Scholastic metaphysics to harmonize the rationalistic mysticism of the Pythagorean~Platonic tradition with the unknowable God of the Bible (with which they replaced the unknowable One of Plotinus, whilst retaining other elements of neo-Platonism, which became essential to theology proper.)

It was the turn towards nominalism in the medieval period that proclaimed the divine will utterly unknowable and in some sense not only beyond reason, but tantamount to irrational. It was like saying 'how dare you believe that the Creator might be understandable through the perspective of philosophy!' This is the strain of 'what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem' and 'foolishness to the Greeks' that also runs through Christianity.

It becomes dominant in Protestantism, but it has always been one of the major currents in Christian thought. That's why I think that Protestantism, on the whole, is much less friendly to mysticism, than is Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Does the supernatural element of any religion provide any insight whatsoever that is unavailable to reason and that cannot be reached through reason? — tim wood

The terms 'supernatural' and 'metaphysical' are actually synonymous - Latin and Greek, respectively. But current culture has an aversion, or an incapacity, to deal with whichever of these terms you wish to use. 'Metaphysics' has become a catchphrase for 'all kinds of woo'. 'Supernatural' is spooks, seances, and strange beliefs by fringe people.

What has happened is that since medieval times, there has been a 'flattening' of the conception of man and nature, which was previously understood in terms of an hierarchical ontology, the great chain of being, with God (or the One) as the source - 'super' in the sense of 'above'- and the material domain as the bottom ('here below' in traditional parlance). Man is in the middle, animals below, angels above.



The Great Chain of Being - Medieval Woodcut.


Now understanding of that hierarchical nature of reality has been practically eliminated from Western cultural discourse, although it's still preserved in some forms of Christianity.

So, full marks for actually grappling with the question!

My conclusion is that on these terms, the claim that God exists is simply an metaphysical error made by folks who don't know any metaphysics. — tim wood

You really ought to take the time to read this brief OP on the sense in which God does not exist - by Pierre Whalon, who is a Bishop!

Insights, at least poetic and religious insights (as opposed to, say, insight in the sciences) are sufficient unto themselves; in other words they are their own verifications, and no verification of them by anything outside them is possible. — Janus

An empty and trivial argument looms, here. I don't want that argument. But when you write that "no verification... is possible," I don't know what you mean. Suppose the insight occurs like a bright light: such a light blinds; one sees nothing. The light, bright as it may be, is just the opposite of illuminating. A lesser light illuminates by letting one see the darkness better, or into it perhaps more deeply. It both preserves what was seen, even as it adds to or clarifies it. That is, the illumination is in a sense "verified" by the darkness it preserves. Insight, along these lines, preserves - is connected in some way - to that which it clarifies. If there is no such contact, then what is it an insight into?

The only sense in which it could be said they are "verified" by reason is insofar as we might give reasons for thinking that insights are their own verification; and this would be merely a secondary sense derivative of the insight itself. — Janus

Again, "insights are their own verification"? This is akin to saying that a true proposition is just plain true in itself without recourse to criteria, or that the criteria are coincidental to the quality of being true. And I disagree: verification is what grounds the insight, or the quality of being true, and lacking which there is no true or insight. Verification is an integral part.

I think that's a bit simplistic. The early Christian Platonists had no trouble showing that the Unmoved Mover of the Greeks, or the One of Plotinus, amounted to the Greek conception of the same God that had revealed Himself in the Bible. — Wayfarer

I'm having trouble reading your sentence: should I read it (more-or-less) this way, "The unmoved mover of the Greeks - was - the God of the Bible"? If yes, I disagree. The development by the Patristic Fathers of the idea of God is just exactly that. And the God of the Bible is just exactly something else. And the Bible's God is a lot more than just a notion of the Greek unmoved mover.

I am no fundamentalist, but I generally buy the notion that if you're going to insist on believing that the Christian God is real and existing, then the Bible is the place, the only place, to learn whatever can be learned about Him.

The substance of the rest of your post I understand as a history of the ideas of God. And this becomes interesting. If God is what the history of God tells us (akin to philosophy being in a sense the history of philosophy), then God is a creature of idea and the history of idea - which in my opinion is the only actual God there is. That is, God is as the efficacy of the idea of Him for thinking.

Any other claim about God amounts to either a break in, or a new branch of, the history of God (as idea). Or it's a claim of revelation of some kind. Which is at once a break in the history of God in the sense of not being in the stream of the history, but also not just a new branch of it, but rather an entire breaking of that history.

Setting revelation aside (I haven't had one). It seems the choice is between the Biblical God or the historically revised God. For most subjects, biology, geology, most of the -ologies, I go with modernity. The idea of God seems different. For a Christian I think it has to be the Bible, perhaps accepting the historical development of the ideas of God as advisory, but always subject to interpretation right now; that is, ultimately what the Bible says about God is what it says right now, which is to say, how it is understood right now, although in the light of what has already been said.

And the main thrust, here, seems to be in accord with what Bishop Whalon wrote (thank you for the link!). The Flying Spaghetti Monster is but a monster of straw. If science is geared towards the how, then God is the answer to the otherwise unanswerable why. But as the history of science and God shows, that God keeps changing, a phenomenon sometimes called God-in-the-gaps. In my opinion, the secret is to keep re-examining in God that which comes to be understood to be immune to change.

An empty and trivial argument looms, here. I don't want that argument. — tim wood

WTF is that supposed to mean? I also have no idea where you are going with the bright/less bright light/ darkness metaphors.

Again, "insights are their own verification"? This is akin to saying that a true proposition is just plain true in itself without recourse to criteria, or that the criteria are coincidental to the quality of being true. — tim wood

No, it's not saying that at all; insights are not the same as kinds of things as propositions. Think about what it means to have insight into a poem or into a spiritual truth. It's not a matter of being correct in any way that could possibly be verified. To think that would be to commit a category error. Remember I qualified my initial statement by excluding scientific insights.

'm having trouble reading your sentence: should I read it (more-or-less) this way, "The unmoved mover of the Greeks - was - the God of the Bible"? If yes, I disagree. The development by the Patristic Fathers of the idea of God is just exactly that. And the God of the Bible is just exactly something else. And the Bible's God is a lot more than just a notion of the Greek unmoved mover. — tim wood

Of course it's more - it's a development. I’m not saying it’s *only* that. But what I'm saying is that in the history of philosophical theology, you will find in the works of the Church fathers, such as Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, in particular, a synthesis of Greek and Hebrew

Clement of Alexandria was a Christian theologian who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. A convert to Christianity, he was an educated man who was familiar with classical Greek philosophy and literature. As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular by Plato and the Stoics.

Origen, reportedly trained in the school of Clement and by his father, has long been considered essentially a Platonist with occasional traces of Stoic philosophy. Patristic scholar Mark J Edwards has argued that many of Origen's positions are more properly Aristotelian than strictly Platonic (for instance, his philosophical anthropology).

It's a huge historical issue, of course, so there are many details we probably can't go into; but nevertheless, it is a common Christian trope from those times that Socrates and Plato were 'Christians before Christ'.

I am no fundamentalist, but I generally buy the notion that if you're going to insist on believing that the Christian God is real and existing, then the Bible is the place, the only place, to learn whatever can be learned about Him. — tim wood

I think the second part of that sentence contradicts the first - that is just the kind of thing a fundamentalist would insist on. Or perhaps you're not a fundamentalist, but your idea of what Christianity comprises has been formed on the examples of fundamentalists.

There was a British philosopher of religion, by the name of John Hick, who started his career a straight-forward evangelical Christian, but after some time in Birmingham, became an articulate advocate for religious pluralism.

at a deeper level it seemed evident to me that essentially the same thing was going on in all these different places of worship, namely men and women were coming together under the auspices of some ancient, highly developed tradition which enables them to open their minds and hearts “upwards” toward a higher divine reality which makes a claim on the living of their lives. ...

...given the various cultural ways of being human we can I think to some extent understand how it is that they constitute different "lenses" through which the divine Reality is differently perceived. For we know that all human awareness involves an indispensable contribution by the perceiver. The mind is active in perception, organising the impacts of the environment in ways made possible both by the inherent structure of consciousness and by the particular sets of concepts embedded in particular minds. These concepts are the organizing and recognitional capacities by which we interpret and give meaning to the data which come to us from outside. And this general epistemological pattern, according to which conscious experience arises out of the interpretive activity of the mind, also applies to religious experience. — John Hick

Very Kantian, which is no coincidence. And I'm very much of the same school. I studied comparative religion - actually majored in it - because I thought studying the data of religious experience across cultures was one way to form an idea of what (if anything) is behind it. (I will acknowledge that I've never been atheist, but my own spirituality doesn't revolve around what most understand as 'theism'.)

If God is what the history of God tells us (akin to philosophy being in a sense the history of philosophy), then God is a creature of idea and the history of idea - which in my opinion is the only actual God there is. That is, God is as the efficacy of the idea of Him for thinking. — tim wood

You may recall the well-known Asian parable of the blind men and the elephant; I won't bore you by re-telling it. But a believer might say, although ideas of the metaphorical elephant might evolve over time, it's still the same elephant. But then I do understand your predicament - if you're obliged to deny there is any elephant, then there can't be disagreement about it in the first place!

In any case, that kind of 'history of the idea of God' is also an interesting study - Karen Armstrong made her popular reputation with her book 'A History of God' on just that.

But as the history of science and God shows, that God keeps changing, a phenomenon sometimes called God-in-the-gaps. In my opinion, the secret is to keep re-examining in God that which comes to be understood to be immune to change. — tim wood

Well, I often muse that 'the gaps' are larger than ever nowadays. After all, scientists now routinely acknowledge that current physics only accounts for 4% of the known universe; there's 'a gap' for you.

I think the whole 'science and the new physics' movement is pointing towards a radically new and different way of seeing things.

And when you ‘re-examine God’ what can you possibly be talking about, but an idea? What people say? What functions are attributed to this hypothetical entity? If someone was to set off on a quest ‘to find God,’ what would that likely entail? What kind of search would they be undertaking? I imagine it would involve a fair amount of solitude, and perhaps a lot of reading. But I don’t think it would be a scientific expedition.

I favor eminationism, like the Gnostics, and Hindus. They jive best with my experiences and sensibilities.

Ecclesiastes 7:7-12

For oppression makes a wise man mad, And a bribe corrupts the heart. 8 The end of a matter is better than its beginning; Patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit. 9 Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, For anger resides in the bosom of fools. 10 Do not say, "Why is it that the former days were better than these?" For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this. 11 Wisdom along with an inheritance is good And an advantage to those who see the sun. 12 For wisdom is protection just as money is protection, But the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors.

I think this addresses aspects of wisdom as forms of comportment, in a way which is wholly human.

Oppression (life) makes a wise man mad because he is powerless to it, all fruits that life has to offer in this oppressive situation can corrupt even a wise man's heart. The writer (Solomon) suggests that rather than assuming a ridged self righteous attitude, a wise man must be patient in life, and see what happens. What initially looks good may not end up being good.

Being angry, having an intensely affective reaction to life's travesties is rash, and only fools are rash. Life is constantly changing, nostalgia negates acceptance of life as it is and can be, for what it was. Solomon joins wisdom and Inheritance, which I take as knowledge and good luck. We ought to take advantage of good situations because life always changes.

Wisdom is a "protection", a defense (word also means shadow in Hebrew, linking it with the "Sun") it is defensive as knowledge along with good fortune is demonstrative of wisdom. Unlike money (good fortune or luck) which is can always change, knowledge enables one to know what to do, this is how it preserves, defends the wise in the face of oppression.

No, it's not saying that at all; insights are not the same as kinds of things as propositions. Think about what it means to have insight into a poem or into a spiritual truth. It's not a matter of being correct in any way that could possibly be verified. To think that would be to commit a category error. Remember I qualified my initial statement by excluding scientific insights. — Janus

Maybe we're just tangled on "verification." I only mean that insights are usually meaningful in some sense, and that meaning is obtained by and through reference to something. Even pain can give insight, even as trivially as, "Boy! That really hurts!" But my point is that even that is given by reference to something else, in this case prior experience with pain.

Or maybe you don't mean that at all. I'd be interested in your account of some insight that is complete in itself without any reference to anything else.

To be clear, I think that process of "getting" the insight just is the verification.

The range of such things is of course large. But four points might be pain as above, a mathematical insight that still might require working out to more formally verify, uncovering the meaning of a poem, or even the epiphany of love got from an unexpected kiss. My point is that any insight from these or any other is got through a process of referencing to something, somehow, that I mean is the verification. Without that, no insight, no meaning.

we be wise without a supernatural God? — tim wood

Thanks for this thread, I’ll definitely read and catch up on the rest of it.

I don’t think such questions are helpful as deductive proofs or disproofs of God.
I like to ask since wisdom comes from God, then what does that mean for XYZ?
I know this drives atheists crazy. It makes religious people crazy too because if all wisdom comes from God it makes their books secondary and no longer authorative.

Basically this is my whole philosophy summed up. “God is the source of all wisdom, let’s listen together.”

I think the second part of that sentence contradicts the first - that is just the kind of thing a fundamentalist would insist on. Or perhaps you're not a fundamentalist, but your idea of what Christianity comprises has been formed on the examples of fundamentalists. — Wayfarer

We've come quickly to the point where we may need to define our terms - and who knows, that might make a highway of an otherwise bumpy road!

First I think we have to distinguish among ethical Christians (my group), cultural Christians, and religious Christians (all for lack of better names). The first two are no doubt interesting, but not my topic here. The religious Christians (of my experience) are linked by their profession of a belief in a real being they call God, that I call a supernatural being. Not only do they profess that belief, but they also maintain that belief, in the sense of believing real and existing, including the miracles, in those supernatural elements is the sine qua non of being a Christian. You may recall a Dr. Gene Scott, a late night religious personality: he put it succinctly, "If the resurrection isn't true, then Christianity is just another cult." (Harsh, because I think Christianity allows for more thinking than a cult can.)

Religious Christians have their share of hypocrites, the manifestations of which range all the way up to genocidal practices. But I exclude the hypocrites from consideration - after all, they're not really Christians, yes? Those that are left seem to have access to something that can make them seem individually wise, even those lacking education.

We're using "religion" and "theology." If I read you right, you're locating Christianity in the "history of philosophical theology." I unpack that this way: theology is "first wisdom." My first cut at wisdom is that the person is wise (with respect to some subject matter) if they're able to chase a question to its end, resolving it in a way that rings true. Wisdom, then, is a capacity of judgment in thinking. "Philosophical" is just thinking about thinking. And "history of" is just that record of thinking about thinking penetrating thought. But "theology" also has resonances of religion. I think both words cross-contaminate each other. If theology is the goal and the "what," then religion is a how, or way: not the same thing.

Religious Christians, then, aspire to wisdom (whatever they call it). They represent their source as God (and Jesus Christ), as found in the Bible. And their method includes acceptance as real and existing things that many of us can't.

And this marks another division. You apparently want to walk Christianity forward by walking with criteria established by "modern" criticism as developed through philosophical reflection. I'm thinking a religious Christian goes your way with difficulty, if at all. The question is, is your way Christianity? And that seems not a simple or easy question. The answer may devolve to definition, which is to say it does not resolve.

One way is to "translate" the modern message (understanding "modern" as referring to any post-Biblical commentary) to subsume it under some Biblical message. This allows for increased understanding without destroying the original text.Which leaves untouched the question of the value of the supernatural elements. (I also think the only way to do this is first to understand the Bible in modern terms, and then reconstruct modern thought in Biblical terms - though I doubt anyone who gets halfway through this exercise will complete the second half.)

And when you ‘re-examine God’ what can you possibly be talking about, but an idea? What people say? What functions are attributed to this hypothetical entity? If someone was to set off on a quest ‘to find God,’ what would that likely entail? What kind of search would they be undertaking? I imagine it would involve a fair amount of solitude, and perhaps a lot of reading. But I don’t think it would be a scientific expedition. — Wayfarer

Agreed, mostly. I rather think that solitude and reading might be combined with practice. The Bible, if that's our start, seems mainly concerned with doing, and with "heart" only as it fits with or opposes the doing. And not natural science, but surely organized and critical thinking.

Basically this is my whole philosophy summed up. “God is the source of all wisdom, let’s listen together.” — MysticMonist

Maybe recast this as a syllogism?

We should all want to be wise.
If God is the source of all wisdom, then (to be wise) we should all listen to God.

The hypothetical spares you from explicating "God is." If you don't like the hypothetical, I invite you to try that explication.

I think we have to distinguish among ethical Christians (my group), cultural Christians, and religious Christians (all for lack of better names). The first two are no doubt interesting, but not my topic here. The religious Christians (of my experience) are linked by their profession of a belief in a real being they call God, that I call a supernatural being. Not only do they profess that belief, but they also maintain that belief, in the sense of believing real and existing, including the miracles, in those supernatural elements is the sine qua non of being a Christian. You may recall a Dr. Gene Scott, a late night religious personality: he put it succinctly, "If the resurrection isn't true, then Christianity is just another cult." (Harsh, because I think Christianity allows for more thinking than a cult can.) — tim wood

Quite how we make these divisions is fundamental. I suppose you could say that the early church solved this very problem by thrashing out and adopting the Confessions of Faith, such as the Nicene Creed, which was the summary of what every Christian is expected to believe. Subsequently there was then a clear distinction between believers, unbelievers and heretics. It might also be noted that the concept of 'heresy' ultimately means 'holding an opinion' or 'having a point of view'. From the viewpoint of orthodoxy, the revelation of God's word is final, efficacious, and perfect, so that all was required of believers was to accept it, live by its commandments, and participate in the sacred liturgy and ritual. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, no salvation outside the Church, meant what it said. It didn't require your agreement, and certainly not your opinions, only your belief. I think that's the attitude that characterises your third group.

Within this frame of reference, 'wisdom', in the Greek sense, was actually disparaged - 'the wisdom of the children of God is folly to the world', and 'foolishness to the Greeks'. I suppose that conveys the ecstatic quality of salvation; the believer being lifted 'out of this world' by the saving grace of Jesus and with no need of the wisdom of the vain philosophers. But this can easily morph into fanaticism, a sad example of which was the murder of the neoplatonist Hypatia at the hands of Christian fanatics (who were, however, of a lower social order than the educated ecclesiasticals.)

The later Platonists, such as Proclus, had a deep hatred of the Christians, whom they generally depicted as fanatical ignoramuses. But strangely enough, within a few centuries, Christian theology had incorporated many Platonist ideas into their corpus. (I used to have the view that the Catholic church had in some sense pillaged ancient culture, and then locked its great philosophical works in the Vatican archives, where they could only be perused by those who had 'signed the contract'. I don't know if I still believe that.)

But I think the fact of the matter is that the early centuries of the Christian era were a boiling ferment of religious ideas. People used to brawl in the street about the Nature of the Son. Out of that, emerged the outlines of orthodox Christianity, mainly in the form of the Catholic Church, which of course was to subsequently splinter via numerous schisms. But during this process, the Church incorporated all manner of ideas from existing cultures, including 'pagan' cultures; you see that in Christmas trees and Easter eggs (by the way, did you know there's a link between 'easter' and 'oestrus'? Easter is essentially the ancient, pre-Christian fertility ritual, re-framed around the Resurrection, but conveying exactly the same message of 'new life'.)

You may recall a Dr. Gene Scott, a late night religious personality: he put it succinctly, "If the resurrection isn't true, then Christianity is just another cult." (Harsh, because I think Christianity allows for more thinking than a cult can.) — tim wood

C S Lewis used to say of Jesus: Liar, Lord or Lunatic. Either he was a (let's see) L Ron Hubbard, or he was completely bonkers, or he really was who he said he was.

But I think there's another option. Looked at in terms of anthropology of religion, Jesus is the archetypical, peripatetic, God-realised being.

Now that term 'God-realised' needs some explanation. I first encountered it in relation to Indian sages, notably Ramana Maharishi (1879-1950), at whose ashram Somerset Maugham stayed, which became the inspiration for his book The Razor's Edge. Ramana has become something of a legendary figure of modern spirituality; his Ashram near Tiruvannamalai in Southern India is now a place of pilgrimage for many thousands. In any case, his teachings were digested into books and pamphlets, many edited by a British truth-seeker by the name of Paul Brunton, and became widely influential in the 20th Century.

I think it would be impossible for me to convey or do justice to this idea of 'God-realisation' in a forum post, but suffice to say that the basic notion is that the God-realised being is one who has realised that only God is real. This is an aspect of the Hindu doctrine of maya - that worldly beings have a delusional understanding of the nature of existence, on account of their desire and ignorance (avidya) which in the case of the realised being, such as Ramana, had been entirely dispersed.

Now, Ramana would invariably use the term 'The Self' for God, in line with the Hindu conception of the identity of ātman, the individual soul, and Brahman, the soul of the Universe. As regards whether this was 'the same' as the Christian god - Ramana left no doubt that he thought so, as he would frequently refer to several Biblical aphorisms - chiefly, the self-definition of God as 'I AM THAT I AM' (Ex. 3:14), and also the line from the Psalm, 'be still, and know that I am God' (Ps 46:10).

Now, of course, many orthodox Christians would immediately reject the notion that a Hindu holy man could be considered 'saved'. And actually I don't want to even pursue that argument. The reason I brought Ramana in was mainly, as I said, anthropological; because it provides an archetypical form, of whom Jesus might be seen as an exemplar. So that's what I mean by an alternative to 'liar, lord or lunatic'.

You apparently want to walk Christianity forward by walking with criteria established by "modern" criticism as developed through philosophical reflection. I'm thinking a religious Christian goes your way with difficulty, if at all. The question is, is your way Christianity? And that seems not a simple or easy question. The answer may devolve to definition, which is to say it does not resolve. — tim wood

As it happens, I consider myself Buddhist, and have marked that conversion with a formal ceremony. But I am not on those grounds opposed to or antagonistic to Christianity. However it's an asymmetric relationship - whereas Buddhism (and Indian religions generally) recognise many paths, orthodox Christianity, generally, can only ever recognise one.

But in the Forum environment, I generally find myself defending Christianity (specifically, Christian Platonism) against its materialist critics; I feel quite an affinity with many Christian philosophers, especially Catholic and Orthodox, even if ultimately I don't share their beliefs.

(Actually one apologist book I could recommend to an intelligent and thoughtful critic such as yourself is David Bentley Hart's 2013 The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. The last three terms are a reference to the Hindu 'sat-chit-ananda' which is very much associated with figures such as Ramana.)

I suppose you could say that the early church solved this very problem by thrashing out and adopting the Confessions of Faith, such as the Nicene Creed, which was the summary of what every Christian is expected to believe.... Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, no salvation outside the Church, meant what it said. It didn't require your agreement, and certainly not your opinions, only your belief. I think that's the attitude that characterises your third group. — Wayfarer

I can't in reply do justice to your posts, but I appreciate them. I never before recognized just how sharp the "We believe..." is.

If you go to this site

https://books.google.com/books/about/An_Essay_on_Metaphysics.html?id=mvrMDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

and scroll down to chapter XXV, Axioms of Intuition, and read to the end of the section, or at least to this:

"To say that a line in nature is not quite straight means for a Platonist that it is an approximation to a straight line, the result of a praiseworthy but not altogether successful attempt on the part of some natural thing to construct a straight line or to travel in one. For a Christian it cannot mean that. The line was drawn or constructed by God; and if God had wanted it to be straight it would have been straight. To say that it is not exactly straight, therefore, means that it is exactly something else. The natural scientist must find out what it exactly is." An Essay on Metaphysics, R.G. Collingwood.

I believe you will be delighted. The whole book is a delight.

-----

But there is no end of religion, its claims, reasons, methods, demands. Far the better, it seems to me, to resolve what religion is before jumping into its content. The "is" matters; it refers to being: what is the nature of the being of religion? What does it mean to a) be a religion? b) follow - to have - a religion? Not in terms of the rules - how to be an adherent - but what it means to be that adherent. This rules out answers in terms of the content or history of the religion.

I reject the supernatural. Is that rejection destructive of, say, Christianity? Does it mean that I am not and can never be a Christian if I hold to the rejection? I think the same questioning applies to any religion - or anything that makes a substantive claim.

At the same time I hold that actuality does not require either the existence (except as actuality) or reality of the actual. Unicorns, for example, are actual. But they don't exist, beyond my idea of them. In such terms God exists, without any possible doubt. I get what you mean about denying the elephant. But I argue that at all times we are within the horizon of our collective capabilities, and only beyond them as error or adventures in speculation. And this is just exactly Kant.

A peculiar situation. One can both reject and have God - or any impossible thing or being. This turns us back to the question of the OP. In somewhat different form: can all that is expressed through the supernatural aspects of religion be "translated" into and preserved in non-supernatural terms?

I suspect they can, but the resultant language will probably look a lot different than Bibles or Korans or similar texts. It would be nice to have a simple translating device available, but I think such does not exist.