Jump to content

romansh

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1,162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by romansh

  1. I must admit I have a bias for Stephen Batchelor ... here's one of the reasons why. The Agnostic Buddhist Thoughts?.
  2. Higher senses? I would settle for developing reason or at least common sense.
  3. The Question That Evolutionists Can't Answer

    In a recent post it was claimed as above, This is fundamentally false. Life evolves ... there is no particular direction to complex or the less complex. just because Life started off as in less complex does not mean such a trajectory will continue.
  4. Study Bible - Allegory

    Welcome Mystert I recommend Joseph Campbell .... Power of Myth, Pathways to Bliss, and Myths of Light. Strictly speaking these books are not what you are asking for, but they do compare various religions in terms of metaphor and allegory. I would start with a coffee-table version of Power of Myth. It is a transcript of a conversation Joseph Campbell had with Bill Moyers. It also available on DVD .... always fell asleep with beer in hand on that one though. And again as a recommendation that is slightly off topic, I would look at alternative paths ... eg understanding how the universe ticks and work up from there. rom
  5. Agnosticism

    A brief summary of Huxley's intent for the term Agnosticism https://www.thoughtco.com/agnosticism-and-thomas-henry-huxley-248044
  6. Agnosticism

    Joseph recently posted Living with Uncertainty and I could not help identify this as a form of agnosticism. Anyway being of an agnostic persuasion made, it made sense or most of it, I think. Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell a poster boy for atheism (and agnosticism) which parallels Joseph's line of thought. Perhaps the quote is a bit more aggressive than Joseph's “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” and another from Russell I think nobody should be certain of anything. If you’re certain, you’re certainly wrong because nothing deserves certainty. So one ought to hold all one’s beliefs with a certain element of doubt, and one ought to be able to act vigorously in spite of the doubt…. One has in practical life to act upon probabilities, and what I should look to philosophy to do is to encourage people to act with vigor without complete certainty. Now I personally would not call uncertainty,God, Love or Being.
  7. Agnosticism

    For those interested in the subject ... Here is a summary of some of the various agnostic positions out there, http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_agnosticism.html I would argue Huxley's original intent was beyond just God, gods etc. And in today's use of the term is used beyond just god etc.
  8. Ignosticism

    On the original/earlier Wiki page for ignosticism there was a position quoted along the lines that words should be defined otherwise conversations would not be meaningful. I must admit I tend to agree. Now there are many words used here in these threads that seem to mean slightly different things to different people and at times seem at odds to my trusty Oxford Concise (trust me you would not want have Concise dropped on your bare feet). Some of these words include: Divine/divinity Transcendence/transcend/transcendent Immaterial God Holy Spirit/Spiritual ... OK this has been done before Grace Now I may add some other words as they crop up but I would be interested in people's succinct definitions for each these. I am not expecting agreement but just a sense of how people use these words. Thanks in advance rom
  9. Ignosticism

    Not necessarily. You seemed to have missed my point completely. Let us assume you believe in something "more" and yet that something "more: does not exist. Then that something "more" is imagined ... however vaguely (and believed).
  10. Panentheism 101

    For me they are aligned more with the sciences. In fact natural philosophy spawned science.
  11. Ignosticism

    I agree with you, if we take the (a) narrower definition of theism. But it is certainly not true for the word pantheism. I am a little amused by this thormas. If I were to accuse of having no imagination then you would also be affronted. Lets assume for the moment the "more" in transcendence does not exist or is very different from what you have imagined that more to be. So in this sense by definition the transcendence is imagined. A similar argument could placed for immanence ie an "in dwelling". You can't point to that "in dwelling" without some imagination. Also even if your hypothesis is true you can only imagine what this transcendence or immanence is. Of course you will argue transcendence and immanence exist in the sense of conceptions. Much in the same way unicorns exist as conceptions or imaginings. With the added bonus we can have fluffy dolls to bolster our imaginings. These concepts exist on paper or a lecturer's brain where he transmits the concepts via air vibrations or maybe to a chalk board (in the 70s) to your brain where your brain imagines it has received the concept. A far more profane example is the red London double decker bus. We think of it as red. But if you paid attention in classes that the redness was due to some wavelengths of light being adsorbed by the surface and some reflected. the light then being focused on the three types of cones in your retina where photochemical reactions occur and allow the "red" signals are transmitted as charge ions and compounds down your optic nerve to the brain. Where the signals are interpreted and imagined as red.
  12. Panentheism 101

    It may well be for you Burl. But for me the point is more along the lines: Getting better descriptions and understanding of the way the universe ticks. Providing and honing tools to do this: eg formalized logic, scientific method, and on occasion asking novel and increasingly complex questions.
  13. Agnosticism

    I want evidence for what exactly? Some theists claim they do know. Not at all. A strong theist believes god exists and perhaps even knows god exist (gnostic theist). You have not burst my bubbles at all. This of course is nonsense ... in fact I more or less said the opposite here: No it is evidence that people claim they know god exists. To what exactly? I will eventually get to the rest of the post ... I hope it will depict my replies more accurately. You are welcome
  14. Ignosticism

    Anyone for a translation? I take thormas's definitions to be: Transcendent: beyond or, non spatially speaking, 'more' than the world Immanent: is 'more' is 'in and with" man in the ordinary, everyday, life of man
  15. Agnosticism

    To be accurate ... before I believe in stuff I seem to need some evidence. Now I am not claiming a theist knows anything, but I gave you an example of Carl Jung (evidence) claiming he knows. As an agnostic I can observe I might not "know", but I can't say Jung does not "know"; I have no way of interrogating his perceptions (even if he were alive). All I can say is he claims he "knows". And a reminder you have more or less agreed that there is no evidence and yet you believe for your version of god. What actually would be relevant is a theistic understanding of agnosticism. You definitely not getting the hang of this agnosticism business are you thormas or at least my version of it. Agnosticism is not about belief or lack of belief in gods. Again Huxley coined the term with respect to other unconfirmed aspects of nature including gods. For example science is agnostic regardless of what you have read. A theory is like a piñata. Eventually it will succumb to hungry little scientists with evidence. Again --- if you actually gave a Christian insight into agnosticism that would be on track. Agnosticism is not solely about god!
  16. Panentheism 101

    Perhaps ... but your explanations are not working outside of your imagination. And we can start simple and build up a picture. I can do the graphics for you. The problem here is, in the Ignosticism thread you had God synonymous with Love/Abba. Ignoring Abba for the moment ... I have a good sense of what love is in its various forms, perhaps even extending it to its biological and evolutionary basis. Now what is Love and how does it differ from love ... answers please on the ignosticism thread? But in the meantime assuming it is similar to the more mundane love, then this plain vanilla version of love is separate from a good chunk of the universe.
  17. Ignosticism

    I don't have a clue what Love is in the way thormas is using the word. Love - ??? Can someone help please?
  18. Agnosticism

    This might be your definition of a theist, but essentially practically no one else uses this type of definition. A theist very simply is a person who believes in a god and perhaps knows there is a god. The term theism is often specific (but not always) to revealed gods. OK ... you missed the point of the blog completely. This thread is not about whether you accept other people's understanding of what god is or isn't. Then these people who are comfortable with uncertainty can be given the adjective of agnostic. Sorry this is a derail ... incidentally immanent you have not defined ... Again it is not so much I don't believe it as it does not make sense to me. If you go to your ignosticism definition you define God as Love ... so if you could do me a favour go and define Love without using the word God. Thanks
  19. Panentheism 101

    So what would the bubble diagram look like for you?
  20. Agnosticism

    It is not what you accept that matters (if anything actually does). The point of a discussion is to exchange coherent ideas. One can have an agnostic theist ... ie somebody who understands they don't know god exists with some degree of certainty but believe in god anyway. It is not that dissimilar to your point there is little evidence for god but you believe in some version thereof. An agnostic atheist will not pass judgement on some unrevealed god other than to say I have no need to believe in that god. This poorly thought out straw man makes the mistake also. But in another sense it is logical ... we should sceptical of the existence of Sweden, that is until we have collected enough evidence about the existence of Sweden and understand the definitions that generally make up the concept of countries. In another sense the article is right also ... many if not most atheists, agnostic or otherwise, actively disbelieve in many gods, eg Roman, Norse Greek, Baltic, Abrahamic, Zoroastrian etc. But they can still be agnostic to some vague unrevealed god like that you believe in. Technically I would consider myself agnostic regarding panentheism, but once you start giving it properties like love, I start becoming very sceptical. (answers on the last sentence in Panentheism 101, please).
  21. Panentheism 101

    OK taking this slowly ... did you understand the bubbles in Anderson's blog Analogical Thoughts depicting theism and panentheism? Whilst we are at it I presume you understand the pantheist bubble in my representation?
  22. Panentheism 101

    Funny, that is what I say when you try to explain your version of panentheism
  23. Panentheism 101

    This is my take on panentheism as I see it. On the left and right we have the classic theism and pantheism respectively. The left middle is what the blog addressed. And the middle right is an approximation of thormas's take. Is this about right?
  24. Panentheism 101

    When you love you are one. When you tango you are one. And when you don't you are one. I have posted this before but is well worth a repeat ... Happy New Year!
  25. Agnosticism

    Dualism!
×