I'm not smart enough to be...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So I suppose from here, I'd point out that we can all agree about the fact that this universe of ours exists...

Hello Mr. Schmo,

I believe Mr. Simon is still working on whether or not his apple exists.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Aristotle Smith]

...why should we teach Quantum Mechanics, even if the underlying reality of it is 'incomprehensible'?

1. Because it has direct, practical application in the real world.
2. We have very good reason to believe it is true (empirical verification), therefore even if in the end it turns out to be 'essentially incomprehensible', there is very good reason to continue to spend man-power, money and resources to at least try and comprehend it.

I agree that the above reasons are good reasons for teaching QM. However, the above list does not exhaust the possible reasons for why one would want to study a particular subject. For example, most of mathematics is both utterly useless and is beyond empirical verification. In fact, "empirically verified mathematics" is nonsense. That it is also useless is practically a badge of pride among mathematicians, to hear them talk one suspects that the more useless, the better it is for a mathematician.

So why pursue something that is both useless and not empirically verifiable? I can think of two reasons. First, that which is "useless" very often becomes useful down the line. Take something like Group Theory, which was discovered in an attempt to provide exact solutions to quintic equations. This is utterly useless because you can always provide a numerical solution to a quintic equation to any accuracy desired, and it's numbers that really matter for empirical verification. And yet, Murray Gell-Mann used Group Theory in developing QCD and in predicting the Omega minus particle.

But even more so, one should grapple with these things because of the sheer beauty and delight one derives in doing them. There is something very salutary to the soul in doing abstract math, wrestling with philosophical problems, and pondering theological mysteries. Even if it is not useful nor verifiable (in fact, that might make it even more good for the soul).

And with that...

Now - what's the point of 'grappling' with the concept of the Trinity...?

As far as I can tell, the reasons are:

1. Because some people believe in it - for purely religious reasons
2. Some people are interested in the history of the idea (how it came into being, developed etc.)

From the above, I think it's obvious what my response is. The Trinity is an attempt to understand ultimate reality, a theological mystery worth pursuing because it is pursuing the good, the true, and the beautiful. I also think that in the end it benefits society to have people delving into these deep subjects.

Finally, I think this is where atheists have to be careful. Atheists usually approach something like the Trinity convinced ahead of time that it's complete BS. However, this is simply expressing a worldview, not dealing with the actual subject. For most atheists, there is no space in their worldview for something like the Trinity, so a priori it has to be complete BS. Now if you look into it and decide you don't believe it, that's fine with me. But I think it's rare for a person to look at something like the Trinity in depth and not come away with an appreciation for at least why the idea exists. I worry that atheists unnecessarily restrict their worldview because of their presuppositions.

I also worry about theists doing this, but the reasons for them doing this are a bit different and would need a separate thread.

[_Ren]

So why pursue something that is both useless and not empirically verifiable? I can think of two reasons. First, that which is "useless" very often becomes useful down the line.

Heh - well, you were lamenting about our non-ability to comprehend the ultimate reality of QM after a century of effort in your last post.
...so how many centuries should I give Trinity buffs before they can help me find my car keys? :)

But I take your point - you can't necessarily know ahead of time what 'useless' intellectual endeavor will bear fruit and which won't.
I guess you should be able to make an assessment of which 'types' of intellectual endeavor have been demonstrated to 'eventually' bear decent fruit - as far as utility - though right?

Certainly mathematics generally has a good track record - although I totally agree it has contained within it completely abstract corners which you would struggle to assign practical relevance to.

But even more so, one should grapple with these things because of the sheer beauty and delight one derives in doing them. There is something very salutary to the soul in doing abstract math, wrestling with philosophical problems, and pondering theological mysteries. Even if it is not useful nor verifiable (in fact, that might make it even more good for the soul).

Yes, I think you are absolutely right here. This is another reason I should have listed before. Although maybe it could be argued I covered it with 'study it because it is interesting'. But doesn't quite do the point justice I guess.

I can actually see the beauty in a lot of religious concepts, but I guess I have missed that about the Trinity. Maybe I see the edges of such beauty, but I think my Mormon upbringing has probably conditioned me against considering it in any great detail.
Maybe if I had converted to another form of Christianity after leaving Mormonism, I may think differently at this point...

So - point taken. Maybe if I took the time to study it in-depth, I could learn to see the beauty in it that (I'm assuming) you do...

From the above, I think it's obvious what my response is. The Trinity is an attempt to understand ultimate reality, a theological mystery worth pursuing because it is pursuing the good, the true, and the beautiful.

I am perfectly willing to conceded 'beautiful'.
'Good'? Hmmm - I guess in the sense that to know 'The Trinity' is to know about the nature of the one 'true', 'good' God - then yeah, I get that too.
But 'True'...? Well, that's where you lose me! :) But I understand that it is true from the believers point of view...

I also think that in the end it benefits society to have people delving into these deep subjects.

There are lots of 'beautiful', 'deep' subjects to 'delve into'.
Am I convinced that 'The Trinity' is one such subject that truly 'benefits society' to study? Hmmm - not at this point.
Am I even convinced 'The Trinity' as a concept is really 'deep'? Hmmm - no - I'm not convinced of that either.

But maybe if anybody could convince me to change my mind on that, you could...
I'm not saying that it doesn't benefit society in any way for some people to study something like the Trinity.
I think what I'm really saying is that - in my opinion - there are far more 'beautiful', 'deep' and 'true' subjects to spend time on, that would benefit society more.

Finally, I think this is where atheists have to be careful. Atheists usually approach something like the Trinity convinced ahead of time that it's complete b***s***.

Well, I have no desire to be a closed-minded a*****. And yet I have to admit that I do come to this discussion pretty certain that -yes - the Trinity is b*******. Maybe beautiful b*******, but still b*******.

Firstly, it seems obvious to me that The Trinity IS a big old band-aid to hold monotheism together for those of Christian faith. That's quite a feat -so sure - it HAS to be mysterious!

I'd be interested in anything you could say that could change that viewpoint for me.
I hope I have at least convinced you at this point that I would truly consider anything you presented that could help me 'see the light' on that front.

However, this is simply expressing a worldview, not dealing with the actual subject.

Well, yeah - I guess this is true to some extent. But even as a believer I thought it was a bogus idea.
So, I guess it's not just atheists. And it's not all about 'world-view'...

For most atheists, there is no space in their worldview for something like the Trinity

Well - yes - on a technical basis, how could it be otherwise?
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'there is no space in [my] worldview'...

Is there space in my world-view to discover that The Trinity is a far deeper, more beautiful subject than I realise right now, without necessarily buying that it - in any way - bears relation to reality...? Well - sure, I think that's possible. But I don't know if this is what you mean...

...if you mean I should give some space for the 'truthfulness' of it, then - well - I should always be willing to challenge my world-view / belief system. Right? Is this what you mean...?

Now if you look into it and decide you don't believe it, that's fine with me. But I think it's rare for a person to look at something like the Trinity in depth and not come away with an appreciation for at least why the idea exists.

Well, I'll admit that I haven't looked into the Trinity in any kind of thorough, 'serious' way in the sense I'm sure you are talking about here.
But - probably naïvely - I do 'think' I know why the idea exists.
If you think I'm wrong about why the idea exists, then I will be genuinely appreciative on any efforts you can make to correct me.

If your advice is: "Go read some books", then - heh - well, I might do just that. But maybe a starting recommendation would be a good pointer...


Not sure how much longer you'll want to stick with this AS, but I've really enjoyed discussing this with you so far - so I hope you'll carry on as long as you can stand it :)

[_Aristotle Smith]

Ren,

I don't have a formula for getting to understand things like the Trinity, nor do I claim myself to be an expert on the subject. So, I'll just share what has worked for me and the path I have taken. YMMV.

One of the things I realized early on in my studies which eventually led me out of the LDS church and towards Christianity was the Mormons simply do not speak the same language as orthodox Christians. Sure, some of the words are the the same but the entire structure of thought is completely different. I realized that if I was going to understand Christianity, I was going to have to re-orient my thinking completely. I don't think this is something you can do directly, you can't wake up and say "I'm going to change how I think today." It requires a more indirect approach and it takes some time. So I guess a certain amount of curiosity and perseverance is required to get out of the Mormon mindset. But, this is the case with practically any intellectual endeavor, there are rarely quick fixes and unfortunately learning something new at a non superficial level just takes a while.

Having said that, what worked for me was to approach religion and theology literarily and historically. Coming back to the original post in this thread, I think Bowman's approach to the Trinity is not very good pedagogically, especially for someone coming from outside the Christian tradition and for whom the Trinity is relatively foreign. Studying something as a series of logical propositions is just not a good way for most people to enter a particular topic. When people approach the Trinity this way it comes off looking like "a big old band-aid to hold monotheism together for those of Christian faith." The Trinity fits into a context and when you remove the context it makes it very hard to understand where it fits in and why it was put forward as a description of God.

So how does one approach this stuff literarily and historically?

• My first suggestion would be to purchase a modern translation of the Bible and read it. In my experience Mormons have never read the Bible. And by that I mean even if Mormons have read their KJV cover to cover they still haven't read it. First, the KJV is extremely awkward and difficult. Second, most Mormons do not let the Bible speak for itself, they tend to read Mormonism into the Bible. Reading a modern translation helps fight both of those problems. I always recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's non-denominational, scholarly, and the NRSV translation is an excellent and readable translation.
• Picking up college level intros to the Bible can help with seeing the Bible differently. Coogan's Old Testament Introduction is excellent. For New Testament, if you want a critical/non-believer's perspective, try Bart Ehrman's Intro. For a critical/believer's perspective, try Raymond Brown's Intro.
• I think it's important to place the Trinity in context. For that, I highly recommend Phillip Cary's lectures on the History of Christian Theology. I also recommend The Story of Christianity as a quick and easy-to-read history.
• Finally, if you really want to delve into the nitty gritty details of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, Jaroslav Pelikan's book on the subject is very informative. However, I wouldn't try reading his stuff without some preparation first.

I wish I could provide a shorter path to enlightenment, but I really don't know one. In any case, this is what worked for me to learn and appreciate this stuff. Like I said, YMMV.

[_huckelberry]

"The God explaination"
This is a phrase which concerns atheists. Very few people go to church to worship and give thanks to an explaination. But Someschmo does not believe in God so it is rather natural for him to think of God as an explaination and not a very good explaination.

I am not suprised SomeSchmo views the trinity as lame. He does not believe in God and has no reason to understand the trinity or make any real attempt to understand it. The doctrine is a result of the combination of the idea of a personal uiltimate God with belief in Jesus Christ and the atonement. Usually people who think about how these ideas work together either have some belief in them or are considering such belief.

I thought Aristotle Smiths reply about incomprehensible was sensible and helpful. There is a difference between incomprehensible resulting from ignorance or complexity beyond our ability to ananlyzeand instances of incomprehensible resulting from contradiction and actual impossiblity. A person saying mystry in God is natural and an invitation to belief is viewing the first type of incomprehensble. An unbeliever may have in view the second. I think Tarski is suspecting this second form of mystry for the trinity. I cannot find such contradiction or confustion in the trinity. It seems fairly straightforward to me.

I see far more mystery in Gods being than in the idea of the trinity. The Trinity is fairly simple and straight forward I think if you start with the idea of God as eternal, absolute source of the universe who is infinite, then oneness is fundamental to who and what the word God refers to. In that context person or persons is a subset and thus can be considered with numbers other than one. In LDS thought the matter is reversed. Person is fundamental or essential while godhood is a characteristic, accident. The trinity is absurd from LDS concepts while LDS views are absurd from the vantage point of traditional creedal concepts.

[_Ren]

Aristotle Smith,

Thanks for all the recommendations. Maybe there is hope for me yet...!(?) :)
I'm going to start where you suggested, and order a modern Bible translation...

Cheers,
Ren