3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter

I don’t think that monism or dualism can be described as worldviews and trintarianism - presumably the belief that there are three substances - probably can’t either.(E.g. Idealism and Materialism are both forms of monism but I can’t say that they are the same worldview at all)

quote:

---

He explains his conclusions further:

3 Theories Of Everything writes:

​

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.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

Those two concepts are monastic and indistinguishable. They both are human centered. You cant have science without humans to define and quantify it.

---

Oh they are distinguishable. From a scientistic viewpoint there is nothing wrong with using Mengele’s data. From a humanistic viewpoint that data is tainted by the way Mengele got it.

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).

quote:

---

This is how he explains it

---

Explains is a bit strong. Doubling down on the contradictions of the Trinity is an interesting take but not one I can take seriously.

quote:

---

He mentions that no other God in human imagination has this attribute. You can say Buddha alone is Buddha, but thats all. (The rest is silence)

---

How about the TrimurtiI have to say that Potter looks like another apologist with nothing of great value to say.

quote:

---

As far as the Trimurti goes, I think it differs in the whole image thing.

---

But that image is as good a representation as you can get of what Potter is saying - diversity and unity together.The usual Christian view downplays diversity, which is contrary to Potter’s ideas - Potter places diversity on the same level as unity. And a lack of images does nothing to counter that.

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.

quote:

---

Why not?

---

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.

It’s hard to ask anything about a book I haven’t read.And if you don’t want to talk about it more I think this topic is a bit of a waste.

If you think it would be worthwhile to look at them, why not? This is the thread for discussing the book.

My thoughts.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).

I don’t think that my monism is what Potter is talking about at all.But let’s deal,with the physicalism. In my view mind is supervenient on physical phenomena. There is no spirit at least as a concrete entity.

quote:

---

If by concrete you mean material

---

No, I mean as opposed to abstract.

quote:

---

I would argue that there was at one time Jesus Christ as a concrete entity and when He rose, the Body of Christ or the Church became the resident of the Spirit as concrete entity

---

I would argue that he did not rise. Jesus the man was a concrete entity, but that man is dead, gone and so obscured that historians despair of finding the truth about him.

quote:

---

Perhaps you are an atheist because you cannot fathom God as a concrete entity.

---

No.

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.