If theism stands and falls with theists ...

[Balerion]

Actually, I am after a more sophisticated version of religion:
how to be humble, yet ambitious,
how to know, yet continue to seek knowledge,
how to be kind, but not stupid,
how to be proud of one's attainment, but not vain,
how to be self-sufficient, and yet depend on others.

I think that at least some religions have room for such an approach. Even if perhaps there aren't that many members practicing the religion that way.

All but the last one are attributes most people would like to have (the last being a bit of a contradiction, unless you mean "self-sufficient" and "dependent" in a specific sense, such as being able to feed and house yourself, but relying on others for love and companionship), and can be achieved without any reference to a god or spiritual realm. I'm an atheist, for example, and I would love to say those things about myself, and at times I think I can. There is nothing supernatural about any of those things, nothing that relies on outside agency to achieve.

Unless you're looking to find a shortcut, and/or a way to be those things at all times, in which case you're chasing an illusion.

Thank you for your input, but I don't agree with it.

Well, why not? I'd least like to know what you found wrong about my assessment.

Just read the introduction and the index, they are available in the Amazon preview and at google books.

I've thumbed through it, but I don't see any explanation as to why the paradoxes are inherent to spirituality. I was hoping you could tell me, since I don't plan on buying the book.

Suffering, in its various forms.

You mean you wish to live a stress-free, sadness-free, suffering-free life? That's simply not possible. Even if you found religion tomorrow, unless you had designs on stealing off to some mountain temple in Asia to live among the Buddhists, no religion I know of offer you such a blissful existence (and I'd bet you'd find that even those monks claiming to be stress-free aren't really; just like those Scientologists who claim to be free from headaches and illness).

You can't escape being human. Sometimes life sucks, but it sucks for everybody sometimes. That's the human condition. And I'd say the bad times make the good times sweeter. Isn't it better to settle down for an afternoon with a good book when you've been hard at work all week?

Unless you mean something else. In which case, please share.

If we go by the usual definitions of "God" (the Supreme Person, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, the Source of All, the One Without Whom Nothing Can Happen), then clearly, God is the one to turn to in all one's problems.

Attributing all things to a personal god can perhaps offer some consolation to the grieving and the troubled, just as running home to mommy and daddy is comforting to a child when things go bad, but as was the case when you were a child, nobody can make the bad go away. Nobody's going to miraculously (forgive the term) save you from suffering.

There is simply a thirst for "more." It's not necessarily possible to articulate it, but it exists, as a persistent craving, a persistent sense of "not enough," a persistent desire, longing for more.
One thing I've noticed is that trying to articulate this "longing for more" is an ongoing process, on a daily basis, and one that cannot be neatly pinned down. One may come up with a formulation that seems totally definitive today, only to have it shattered the week after that, and a week later a new formulation appears in one's mind. And so on.

I wasn't asking what you think you're missing, or why you feel that way. I think we can all relate to a feeling of incompleteness. My question is why you think a belief in god is going to fill the void? How do you know it isn't simply an unhappiness with your career, or personal life? Boredom is a very real condition, and some people are more easily susceptible to it than others.

Have you tried therapy? I mean real therapy. Perhaps you can find answers there. Perhaps the biggest fallacy in all of this is that we have a god-shaped hole in our lives. Reason can be as transcendent and beautiful and meaningful as irrational belief, and the pursuit of knowledge--especially knowledge of oneself--is the noblest.

 

[Rav]

No, it makes one possible to begin with.

If mere dictionary definitions would resolve anything, then troubled people would reach for dictionaries, as opposed to sleeping pills, guns, knives, cakes, or aggressive discussion strategies.

But we're not talking about complex psychological issues here, we're talking about a reasonable prerequisite for engaging in theological/philosophical discussion, which is to learn the lingo and respect it.

You simply can not legitimately call deism a form of atheism, since deism is the belief in the existence of a deity, and atheism is the opposite.

 

[Rav]

Yes, absolutely. I should clarify: I didn't mean individuals couldn't come to some kind of similar conclusion, only that it wasn't possible on a societal scale. Or maybe I should say it isn't likely. If enough people have their own definition of god, eventually several are going to find recurrent themes (especially considering that they are all based on existing religions anyway) and--boom--you have a religion.

Yeah, sure, I think you're probably right about that.

 

[wynn]

But we're not talking about complex psychological issues here, we're talking about a reasonable prerequisite for engaging in theological/philosophical discussion, which is to learn the lingo and respect it.

That pretty much assumes that we are to believe that whoever wrote the dictionary (and a particular dictionary at that) was nothing short of enlightened.

You simply can not legitimately call deism a form of atheism, since deism is the belief in the existence of a deity, and atheism is the opposite.

Another example: Is someone who hates God a theist?

You simply refuse to consider that some of the popular definitions of terms may be problematic.

 

[James R]

It's absurd to claim that deism is the same as atheism. It is not. Deists believe in a god. Atheists do not.

Try to write your own dictionary if you like, but don't expect anybody to want to communicate with you if you do.

 

[Rav]

That pretty much assumes that we are to believe that whoever wrote the dictionary (and a particular dictionary at that) was nothing short of enlightened.

Forget the dictionary (although I think you'll find they are all consistent anyway). My references are simply pretty much anything you can find written on the topic, by anyone.

There's nothing complicated about this. Deists are not atheists, because atheists don't believe in a deity. Deists are deists. There's already a word for them.

Another example: Is someone who hates God a theist?

They would be a misotheist.

You simply refuse to consider that some of the popular definitions of terms may be problematic.

There isn't a problem except for the one you are creating. When you want to be specific, all you need to do is use the right term. And when that's not sufficient for accurately characterizing something, you employ some additional adjectives. And when even that is not sufficient, you simply attempt to highlight the subtleties through a further and more comprehensive use of language.

 

[Balerion]

Wynn, seriously, stop it. I've been warming to this new, more open you lately, but you can't have your own definitions for words and then tell others they are wrong for going by the established definitions.

 

[wynn]

All but the last one are attributes most people would like to have (the last being a bit of a contradiction, unless you mean "self-sufficient" and "dependent" in a specific sense, such as being able to feed and house yourself, but relying on others for love and companionship), and can be achieved without any reference to a god or spiritual realm. I'm an atheist, for example, and I would love to say those things about myself, and at times I think I can. There is nothing supernatural about any of those things, nothing that relies on outside agency to achieve.

God isn't exactly an "outside agency."

From what I understood, the whole point of belief in God is to be able to behave differently, to act differently, to do things differently - and this is then conducive to greater happiness.

Unless you're looking to find a shortcut, and/or a way to be those things at all times, in which case you're chasing an illusion.

I have a sense that you're writing autobiographically here. In any case, of what use is the constant paranoia? You (or the hypothetical person we're speaking of) know the difference between right and wrong. You don't need a scripture to tell you that. You know who you are--and if you don't, then you're not alone, but certainly there is no more shallow pursuit than the one for someone to tell you who you are.

In other words, you can function without a personal god. That you haven't had this revelation yet simply means you're too smart for it.

Well, why not? I'd least like to know what you found wrong about my assessment.

You seem to be operating out of a considerably different notion of God than I do.
More below.

I've thumbed through it, but I don't see any explanation as to why the paradoxes are inherent to spirituality. I was hoping you could tell me, since I don't plan on buying the book.

Look at the list I noted earlier -
how to be humble, yet ambitious,
how to know, yet continue to seek knowledge,
how to be kind, but not stupid,
how to be proud of one's attainment, but not vain,
how to be self-sufficient, and yet depend on others.

These are essentially paradoxical desires, given how each pair consists of desires that pull the person in opposite directions.

I think such paradoxes are common in life in general. But they find their sharpest articulation in spiritual pursuits, I think.

You mean you wish to live a stress-free, sadness-free, suffering-free life? That's simply not possible.

If you believe it is possible, or if you don't believe it's possible: you're probably right either way.

You can't escape being human. Sometimes life sucks, but it sucks for everybody sometimes. That's the human condition. And I'd say the bad times make the good times sweeter.

Isn't it better to settle down for an afternoon with a good book when you've been hard at work all week?

I'm sure this works - for some time. Eventually, it breaks down, though.
There comes a point when escapes and distractions don't work anymore.

Attributing all things to a personal god can perhaps offer some consolation to the grieving and the troubled, just as running home to mommy and daddy is comforting to a child when things go bad, but as was the case when you were a child, nobody can make the bad go away. Nobody's going to miraculously (forgive the term) save you from suffering.

It seems you are operating out of a notion of God that is foreign to me.
The Christian "Big Daddy" idea of God has always been foreign to me, I could never relate to it, and it made me feel helpless and stupid.

I wasn't asking what you think you're missing, or why you feel that way. I think we can all relate to a feeling of incompleteness. My question is why you think a belief in god is going to fill the void? How do you know it isn't simply an unhappiness with your career, or personal life? Boredom is a very real condition, and some people are more easily susceptible to it than others.

Like I said, I think it depends on who one thinks God is.
One's career or personal life are not separate from one's understanding of God.
I think "Big Daddy" can't really fill a personal void or make career problems and boredom go away.

However, there are forms of theism that explain "life, the Universe and everything" in such a way that makes a personal void, career problems, boredom etc. appear in a new way; it conceptualizes them differently.

But as my experience has shown, trying to take up that other form of theism has numerous accompanying problems - everything from not getting along with the proponents of that theism to that theism not fitting into Western society.

Have you tried therapy? I mean real therapy. Perhaps you can find answers there. Perhaps the biggest fallacy in all of this is that we have a god-shaped hole in our lives. Reason can be as transcendent and beautiful and meaningful as irrational belief, and the pursuit of knowledge--especially knowledge of oneself--is the noblest.

Standard Western psychotherapy implicitly requires strong atheism, and also an unquestioning acceptance of numerous other propositions (for which there is no empirical evidence, or which require an unscientific interpretation of the evidence).

 

[wynn]

Wynn, seriously, stop it. I've been warming to this new, more open you lately, but you can't have your own definitions for words and then tell others they are wrong for going by the established definitions.

No, it's you who are warming up.

 

[wynn]

There isn't a problem except for the one you are creating. When you want to be specific, all you need to do is use the right term. And when that's not sufficient for accurately characterizing something, you employ some additional adjectives. And when even that is not sufficient, you simply attempt to highlight the subtleties through a further and more comprehensive use of language.

Okay. An "atheistic deist" then.

It's absurd to claim that deism is the same as atheism. It is not. Deists believe in a god. Atheists do not.

Try to write your own dictionary if you like, but don't expect anybody to want to communicate with you if you do.

You simply refuse to consider that some of the popular definitions of terms may be problematic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But we're not talking about complex psychological issues here, we're talking about a reasonable prerequisite for engaging in theological/philosophical discussion, which is to learn the lingo and respect it.

You simply can not legitimately call deism a form of atheism, since deism is the belief in the existence of a deity, and atheism is the opposite.

You're labouring under the misconception that ''atheists'' don't worship God, therefore ''deism'' isn't an atheist religion, because it ''worships'' the universe.

To be an atheist means one does NOT believe in God, with an upper-case G.
The worship of gods (lower case) is not in the same category, these are worshiped with a materialistic goal. For example, if someone is superstitious, i.e. they always wear certain underwear while marking the lottery, because they believe it will bring them luck, are inadvertantly worshiping a god/goddess.

Deism is atheism, pure and simple, because it does not acknowledge God, or a trancendental supreme being. It instead replaces the word universe with the word God.

They deny God His Supremity.


jan.

 

[Rav]

Deism is atheism, pure and simple, because it does not acknowledge God, or a trancendental supreme being. It instead replaces the word universe with the word God.

You're confusing deism with pantheism you nutbag.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're confusing deism with pantheism you nutbag.

So I am.
My bad.
Sorry.

''Nutbag''?
Is that really necessary?

jan.

 

[Adstar]

All that ordinary people ever hear on the topic of "God," they hear from other people. Not from God. Or even if they do hear it from God (let's suppose hre for the sake of argument that God exists and communicates with people), they themselves are not able to discern whether it is from God, or whether it is from other people.
So for all practical intents and purposes, theism stands and falls with theists.


However, this puts the seekers who are not theists, into the precarious position of having to rely solely on theists for input on the topic of "God."
Even though the seekers are legally adults, toward the theists, they must have a childlike trust, the way a child trusts his parents - or there is no communication between the seeker and the theist. Except that the theists do not actually function as parents and have not done anything to earn that trust.

God can communicate with people independent of of His followers. But where He has true Followers who are giving His message, Then there is no need for Him to reveal His will to a person who has access to the knowledge from one of His followers.

But if we are all God's children, if we are all parts and parcels of God, then how can this uneven kind of interaction between theists and seekers, possibly be fair or meaningful?

If the message that a theist gives is true to the will of God then all the meaning is present to be considered.

And if theism stands and falls with theists, then what are the non-theist seekers supposed to do if they don't get along with theists or refuse to accept the theists' terms - how can they ever come to God?

Well if you are getting the Message from true followers of God and you don't like it then you're not going to get anything from God.

If theism stands and falls with theists that means that all those people who are put off by the hostility, anger, impatience, elitism of theists are cut off from ever coming to God.

Atheists don't speak for God. So hostility, anger, impatience, and especially elitism (which is an consistent atheist trait if i have ever seen one) are not that much of a problem with true followers of God.

If theism stands and falls with theists that means that all those people who refuse to be treated like shit by theists, do not deserve to come to God.

The meek shall inherit the earth. The proud don't like conviction and will not submit to the Word of God. Submission is weakness to the proud and they see it as being treated like shite.


Actually i have heard many reports of people experiencing direct contact from Jesus in nations where the preaching of the Word of God is activing persecuted and banned. In the Islamic world there are reports of a lot of people believing in Jesus from recurrent dreams. So even when there are no Christians around to give His message Jesus can get through on another level to those He knows will accept the Love of the Truth.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days



Something doesn't seem right here.

 

[wynn]

God can communicate with people independent of of His followers. But where He has true Followers who are giving His message, Then there is no need for Him to reveal His will to a person who has access to the knowledge from one of His followers.

If the message that a theist gives is true to the will of God then all the meaning is present to be considered.

Well if you are getting the Message from true followers of God and you don't like it then you're not going to get anything from God.

Atheists don't speak for God. So hostility, anger, impatience, and especially elitism (which is an consistent atheist trait if i have ever seen one) are not that much of a problem with true followers of God.

The meek shall inherit the earth. The proud don't like conviction and will not submit to the Word of God. Submission is weakness to the proud and they see it as being treated like shite.

Actually i have heard many reports of people experiencing direct contact from Jesus in nations where the preaching of the Word of God is activing persecuted and banned. In the Islamic world there are reports of a lot of people believing in Jesus from recurrent dreams. So even when there are no Christians around to give His message Jesus can get through on another level to those He knows will accept the Love of the Truth.

What I'm talking about!

I'm afraid that all theism eventually comes down to a stance like above.

 

[Balerion]

God isn't exactly an "outside agency."

God is an outside agent. His capacity to intervene is agency. And yes, this is the correct usages of the term, your particular misunderstanding or personal definition notwithstanding.

From what I understood, the whole point of belief in God is to be able to behave differently, to act differently, to do things differently - and this is then conducive to greater happiness.

I've never heard that particular rationale before, but supposing those things were true--that behaving differently (which is the same as acting differently and doing things differently)--were truly conducive to happiness, why would you need a god to tell you to do so? Just do it on your own.

And it's interesting that someone who says they are unable to articulate exactly what they're missing in life seems to know exactly the remedy.

...?

You seem to be operating out of a considerably different notion of God than I do.
More below.

Those comments were based on your writing, not any particular notion of god.

Look at the list I noted earlier -
how to be humble, yet ambitious,
how to know, yet continue to seek knowledge,
how to be kind, but not stupid,
how to be proud of one's attainment, but not vain,
how to be self-sufficient, and yet depend on others.

These are essentially paradoxical desires, given how each pair consists of desires that pull the person in opposite directions.

None of them are paradoxes, Wynn. Most of them are even on the same side of the coin. For example, being vain is simply having an excess of pride, not pride itself.

Another example: I can know my own name, yet continue to seek out other names. I can know my multiplication tables, yet continue to seek out higher maths.

"Kind" and "stupid" are not even related terms. And one can only be humble in the context of success, so ambition is not the opposite of it, but a prerequisite for it.

I think such paradoxes are common in life in general. But they find their sharpest articulation in spiritual pursuits, I think.

You haven't offered any paradoxes here, but I do agree that life is a struggle to balance ideals and concessions, work and play, family and career, etc.. But again, simply saying that they "find their sharpest articulation in spiritual pursuits" is no help to the discussion unless you can show how they are sharpest, and what exactly these spiritual pursuits are. None of the things you've listed above are spiritual in nature.

If you believe it is possible, or if you don't believe it's possible: you're probably right either way.

Um, no. It's not possible, and if you think it is, you're wrong.

I'm sure this works - for some time. Eventually, it breaks down, though.
There comes a point when escapes and distractions don't work anymore.

It depends on the problem, but I can agree with that.

It seems you are operating out of a notion of God that is foreign to me.
The Christian "Big Daddy" idea of God has always been foreign to me, I could never relate to it, and it made me feel helpless and stupid.

I'm only going by what you write, Wynn. You said yourself you were looking for salvation from suffering. Whether that's in the form of an anthropomorphic God figure, or simply a "spiritual enlightenment" you're still looking for an impossible solution.

Like I said, I think it depends on who one thinks God is.
One's career or personal life are not separate from one's understanding of God.
I think "Big Daddy" can't really fill a personal void or make career problems and boredom go away.

However, there are forms of theism that explain "life, the Universe and everything" in such a way that makes a personal void, career problems, boredom etc. appear in a new way; it conceptualizes them differently.

But as my experience has shown, trying to take up that other form of theism has numerous accompanying problems - everything from not getting along with the proponents of that theism to that theism not fitting into Western society.

So then from your own experience, there is no such thing a stress-free existence. You're never going to find that golden egg. But if you're really set on being a theist (which you clearly are) then just bastardize that faith for your own purposes. After all, that faith is already a bastardization of a previous faith, so there should be nothing preventing you from putting your own spin on it. It still won't solve your problems, but at least you can eliminate the issues pertaining to that particular faith.

Standard Western psychotherapy implicitly requires strong atheism, and also an unquestioning acceptance of numerous other propositions (for which there is no empirical evidence, or which require an unscientific interpretation of the evidence).

That's absolute nonsense. You haven't the first clue as to what you're talking about here. I'm literally embarrassed for you. Wow.

 

[spidergoat]

Deism is atheism, pure and simple, because it does not acknowledge God, or a trancendental supreme being. It instead replaces the word universe with the word God.

They deny God His Supremity.


jan.

No so, they simply think that God's role in creating the universe is long over, and he doesn't involve himself in the petty lives of human beings.

 

[Yazata]

I'm late coming to this thread (already 55 posts long), so I'll post my response to the first post, then skim through the thread and post comments where it seems appropriate.

All that ordinary people ever hear on the topic of "God," they hear from other people. Not from God. Or even if they do hear it from God (let's suppose hre for the sake of argument that God exists and communicates with people), they themselves are not able to discern whether it is from God, or whether it is from other people.

I certainly don't know how to distinguish the experience of a god from inexplicable transcendent experiences generally. But on the other hand, while I've never really had one to speak of, I don't want to flatly dismiss the possibility of veridicial self-autheniticating religious experiences.

So for all practical intents and purposes, theism stands and falls with theists.

Maybe.

However, this puts the seekers who are not theists, into the precarious position of having to rely solely on theists for input on the topic of "God."

I'm a seeker, though I'm not really seeking God. (I don't believe in God.) And even if I was, I'd be more interested in contacting God directly than in hearing about God through some endless game of theological 'telephone'. (I heard it from --, and she heard it from --, and... endlessly. Things get... distorted.)

Even though the seekers are legally adults, toward the theists, they must have a childlike trust

You keep saying that, insisting that theists are in an infinitely superior position to non-theists, while insistng (falsely in my opinion) not to be a theist yourself. (I think that you're still a theist, just one who feels lost somehow, cut off or estranged from something that you assume that the others have.)

the way a child trusts his parents - or there is no communication between the seeker and the theist. Except that the theists do not actually function as parents and have not done anything to earn that trust.

Many of my closest friends and companions are or have been theists. We communicate very well. Perhaps we can't communicate in such a way that their words would make me suddenly become a theist myself. They can't transmit their faith with their words. But as I said, I don't seek that. If I am going to ever have faith in anything, it has to be my faith, not theirs. Nevertheless, we can and do talk about everything else, including religion and philosophy.

But if we are all God's children, if we are all parts and parcels of God, then how can this uneven kind of interaction between theists and seekers, possibly be fair or meaningful?

In Christian terms, maybe you need to be directly touched by the holy spirit yourself. Isn't that how Christian tradition addresses that point?

And if theism stands and falls with theists, then what are the non-theist seekers supposed to do if they don't get along with theists or refuse to accept the theists' terms - how can they ever come to God?

If somebody is a non-theist, then why would he or she be trying to "come to God" in the first place? Wouldn't he or she have to already believe in God in order to want to do that?

I get the impression that to you, 'theist' means somebody touched by God or something, or perhaps somebody comfortably settled into her faith, as opposed to defining 'theist' as somebody who believes in God's existence, even if God is inexplicably silent and the person feels lost and abandoned.

I don't believe in God, so God's silence doesn't surprise me in the least. I'd be tremendously surprised if God suddenly wasn't silent.

 

[kx000]

You're labouring under the misconception that ''atheists'' don't worship God, therefore ''deism'' isn't an atheist religion, because it ''worships'' the universe.

To be an atheist means one does NOT believe in God, with an upper-case G.
The worship of gods (lower case) is not in the same category, these are worshiped with a materialistic goal. For example, if someone is superstitious, i.e. they always wear certain underwear while marking the lottery, because they believe it will bring them luck, are inadvertantly worshiping a god/goddess.

Deism is atheism, pure and simple, because it does not acknowledge God, or a trancendental supreme being. It instead replaces the word universe with the word God.

They deny God His Supremity.


jan.

Yes. Faith would dictate that he has both faith in God's existence, and ability to be supreme. If you have faith not in his God's ultimate ability to play the right hand for the better of all then you are atheist, because you don't believe in God.

 

[kx000]

No so, they simply think that God's role in creating the universe is long over, and he doesn't involve himself in the petty lives of human beings.

Thats fair. Things would be no different if God granted divinity on earth. A flying pig is just a pig to a flying man...