Jump to content
Burl

On modern substitutions for religion

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, thormas said:

You are really going down a rabbit hole here assuming I am purposely, blatantly, mischaracterizing anything. You, once again, input bad motives with someone disagrees with you (this is becoming a pattern for you).

Plus, never said Dawkins said one 'can' know God, rather I said, accurately, that #7 is "I know there is no God or that God doesn't exist." 

You would have a point if Richard self designated as a 6 but he instantly changed to a 6.9 So rather than a 'de facto atheist' he is much closer on the scale to strong atheist: my point. 

I'm still waiting on the 'chasms' (multiple chasms) that fall between 6.9 and 7. Nada from you.

I'm not a theist, at least as classically understood and, as indicted in the dialogue with Rom, I do not use the word 'know.' One cannot know that God does or doesn't exist, one 'believes' he does or he doesn't. So I believe God IS. 

 

Rabbit hole or not, you do appear to be wilfully ignoring the logical arguments that are being presented to you and repeatedly deny they mean what they mean, even when they demonstrate that you are not aligned with Dawkins understanding of his own understanding.  If you say you are not deliberately trying to misrepresent Dawkins in this instance I will accept that.  I think 'pattern' is too strong a word for my response, but maybe I have done that in the past.  But to use your phrase, if it quacks and looks like a duck....

I agree you never said Dawkins said one can know God - it was a typo on my part as I left off the word 'exists'.  I must have deleted it when editing.  I have reincluded the word and I trust the sentence reads better now.  What I was refuting is your statement that Dawkins says "it seems that on his scale one can 'know' God doesn't exist" - that's not the case at all.  On Dawkins scale one can believe they do or do not know God exists (and there are several positions in between) - actual 'knowing' is irrelevant (in the sense that the word know means to have knowledge or information to substantiate - e.g. proof).  Dawkins is not saying anybody does or doesn't 'know' as though they do or don't have proof, he is referring to the degree in which one 'believes' they know.

You say your point is that Dawkins is closer on the scale to strong atheist - all I would say to that is that this was not your point when the conversation took this direction and to say that now does seem to be a weakening of your previous position.  You have been adamant that Dawkins is a 7, even though Dawkins' scale draws a distinction between a 7 and a 6 (and logically anything in between 6 and 7 would also have minute differences perhaps).  But the main point of all of this is that Dawkins is not talking about some indisputable, chemical equation that argues with the laws of the universe.  He is simply demonstrating that the degree to which people believe they know of the existence of God does range across a scale.  There are two extreme ends and a bunch of points in between.  Dawkins makes it clear that he is NOT all the way to one end but admits he is very, very close.  That is a distinction which you have made clear you don't accept.  His book the God Delusion is an excellent piece and I would again encourage you to enjoy it.

I used the term chasms as a turn of phrase, much like one might say two positions are miles apart - how many miles precisely?  1, 3 81?  Of course it can't be one because I have used the adjective in a plural form.  Please accept my apologies for my incredibly poor form in the nuances of the written English language.  To clarify, I mean chasm, singular, but this chasm is exactly 1 million miles from side to side, so it is a very, very large chasm.  You say I gave nada, but I hope my exceptionally large chasm is adequate to demonstrate to you the point I am trying to make between what you are saying and what Dawkins is saying.

To say you believe God IS, rather than to say you believe you know God exists is semantics to me. Belief & knowledge in this Dawkins' instance are rolled up into a ball here and I would suggest you 'believe you know' God IS.  I don't believe you know in the sense that you can prove God IS (as you would agree I'm sure), but I think you believe you know, hence why you say you 'believe' God 'is'.  But if you don't get Dawkins in this regard I doubt you are going to get me or Rom.

So for me, again we are in a position of having to agree to disagree (is that a pattern?).  I don't have the patience of Rom here trying to help you understand Dawkins' scale.  So for me, this is the end of the conversation, but clearly you can reply and/or continue - I'm just taking a breather from it that's all.  Time to go crabbing in fact!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I don't have the patience of Rom here trying to help you understand Dawkins' scale.  So for me, this is the end of the conversation, but clearly you can reply and/or continue - I'm just taking a breather from it that's all. 

It's not just the scale (dumb), but the whole language around atheism, agnosticism and theism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PaulS said:

Rabbit hole or not, you do appear to be wilfully ignoring

And yet again, with imputing bad motives to other people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, romansh said:

1 is about knowing

1.1 is between 2 and 1 so it is about not being certain strongly believing.

My point: there is no knowing, it is about believing (cf Oxford).

There is no certainty, it is a belief (cf Oxford).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, romansh said:

I don't see the mistake here … I stand by what I said.

No the Oxford dictionary has two definitions …  the weak, soft, agnostic or implicit atheist … more or less equivalent to 5 and perhaps 6. The second 'believes not' definition is equivalent to strong, hard and explicit atheist positions … more less equivalent to 6 and perhaps 7. The Oxford definition does not include the gnostic atheist position knowing god does not exist ie 7.

Not the issue. My supposed 'lack of knowledge' is based on accepting your statement that 5, 6 & 7 are atheist positions, There is no lack of knowledge on my part unless there was a prior mistake on your part in listing these as atheism.

Rom, that's the point: you gave the Oxford quote about atheism and it was about believing as opposed to the scale which is about knowing (God does or doesn't exist). 

So, I ask again: "Who is right, is it (atheism) about believing or knowing that doesn't exist?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, romansh said:

No one but no one is claiming otherwise. You seem to want to keep a distinction for yourself believing and knowing (1 vs 1.1) but won't accept the distinction on the other side.

I desire no distinction. I am clearly stating that atheism, theism, denim, pantheism,panentheism, agnosticism are beliefs (there is no certainty, there is no knowing God does or doesn't exist - as described in the scale). I don't care if I'm a 1 or 1.1 as I see no essential difference. Again, the Oxford speaks of atheism differently than is presented in the scale.  Which is it for you. And I still await the chasms of difference between 6.9 and 7 that Paul said existed, Pluralm what are those chasms in detail?

15 hours ago, romansh said:

I do recognize Dawkins is an atheist. He just is not a gnostic atheist. The extra 0.9 is simply pointing at the preposterousness that he finds in the arguments for god. The difference between 6.9 and 7 is the same as 1.1 and 1. You live your life on the assumption there is a god. Me personally I don't assume there isn't a god but my life looks pretty godless. 

Okay, I'll bite. Gnosticism is about special or even secret knowledge that is the purview of the few. Therefore what is a gnostic atheism? How does saying he is 6.9 establish that he is pointing to and dismissing the preposterous arguments for God? It would seem if one is all the way to a 6.9, he is already far beyond those arguments, having dismissed them long ago.

I agree the difference between 6.9 and 7 is the same as 1.1 and 1. that's why I chose 1.1 instead of 1 - the difference is the same and that difference is negligible. 

15 hours ago, romansh said:

No this is an atheist position. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and for that matter neither are theism and agnosticism. Though the latter smacks of fideism.

And yet Jung claimed he knows there is a god.

Here is where we differ: a 7 is the atheist position or perhaps the full atheist position, stating, "there is no God.' There is no doubt, there is no hint of uncertainty.

Now if one is wavering on this to any degree, (to me) this is an agnostic position (there are degrees here): "there is no God, at least I think" or "but I'm not really sure" or some other version. 

So too theism: the full theist position, states, "God IS" or, if some prefer, "there is a God." Someone can be leaning theistically but if they are saying, "at least I think" or "but I'm not really sure" or some other version they are not a theist. Seemingly the agnostic position holds a huge middle ground.

16 hours ago, romansh said:

Certainty in the sense of 100 % I agree, but that is irrelevant. But if I believe I can't be 100 % certain then there is a paradox here. How can I be 100 % certain of this? It's Cantor's self containing set. 

So ultimately I don't agree with you. Dawkins is someone who does not believe there is a god (possibly does believes there is no god), is aware he can't be certain and lives his accordingly as an atheist. Simple really.

There are no 100% atheists? How do you know this? Again (for me) it is not based on certainty, it is belief.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thormas said:

So too theism: the full theist position, states, "God IS" or, if some prefer, "there is a God." Someone can be leaning theistically but if they are saying, "at least I think" or "but I'm not really sure" or some other version they are not a theist

Should read "not a full theist."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 5:23 AM, thormas said:

Rom, that's the point: you gave the Oxford quote about atheism and it was about believing as opposed to the scale which is about knowing (God does or doesn't exist). 

Partly … you missed (ignored) the bit about lacking belief (not believe). Again the Oxford Dictionary did not go into the detail that the Dawkins' scale goes into, nor does it go into the various flavours of atheism I have mentioned. You seem oblivious to these nuances.

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 5:23 AM, thormas said:

So, I ask again: "Who is right, is it (atheism) about believing or knowing that doesn't exist?"

This question does not quite sense to me. Just to pick on three flavours of atheism, weak, strong and gnostic … personally I lead to weak/agnostic atheism, but then again so what?

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

I am clearly stating that atheism, theism, denim, pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism are beliefs

Partly accurate I think … I think a knowledge of denim seems perfectly reasonable to me. Weak atheism is a lack of belief so in of itself is not a belief. The same way not collecting stamps is not a hobby. 

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

I don't care if I'm a 1 or 1.1 as I see no essential difference.

That as may be. But we are talking about how Dawkins and others see it.

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

Again, the Oxford speaks of atheism differently than is presented in the scale

And? The Oxford is barely one line.

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

 Which is it for you. And I still await the chasms of difference between 6.9 and 7 that Paul said existed, Pluralm what are those chasms in detail?

I keep mentioning the different flavours or chasms if you like … Weak, implicit, agnostic, soft, negative, strong, explicit, gnostic, hard, positive … Ok now what? Read up about it  … Google is your friend. 

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

Gnosticism is about special or even secret knowledge that is the purview of the few

If you were a little more familiar with the subject you would understand that gnostic is different from Gnostic and that when speaking of gnostic atheism we are talking about the difference with agnostic atheism.

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

that's why I chose 1.1 instead of 1 - the difference is the same and that difference is negligible. 

So you claim you know god exists really?

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

Here is where we differ: a 7 is the atheist position or perhaps the full atheist position, stating, "there is no God.' There is no doubt, there is no hint of uncertainty.

No. 7 is the gnostic atheist position. 6.9 might be a "very" strong atheist position. I strongly believe there is no god but I can't be certain.

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, thormas said:

There are no 100% atheists? How do you know this? Again (for me) it is not based on certainty, it is belief.

I did not say there are no gnostic atheists (100%). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, romansh said:

Partly … you missed (ignored) the bit about lacking belief (not believe). Again the Oxford Dictionary did not go into the detail that the Dawkins' scale goes into, nor does it go into the various flavours of atheism I have mentioned. You seem oblivious to these nuances.

Actually I'm nothing (lacking belief is to not believe). Plus Rom, as mentioned before I'm working off your sources and there is a distinction between the Oxford  and Dawkins. And actually I refered to the great middle ground of agnosticism which by its very nature in nuanced.

9 hours ago, romansh said:

I keep mentioning the different flavours or chasms if you like … Weak, implicit, agnostic, soft, negative, strong, explicit, gnostic, hard, positive … Ok now what? Read up about it  … Google is your friend. 

On 1/30/2019 at 9:12 AM, thormas said:

These are flavors but a chasm in belief (or flavor of belief) is based on and supported by 'something.' No answers to what the 'somethings' are between the flavors.

9 hours ago, romansh said:

If you were a little more familiar with the subject you would understand that gnostic is different from Gnostic and that when speaking of gnostic atheism we are talking about the difference with agnostic atheism.

On 1/30/2019 at 9:12 AM, thormas said:

Finally a for of answer.I am less familiar because this is not a priority for me. However, different or or not the word gnostic carries meaning and you have not explained its use................so do you have one?

9 hours ago, romansh said:

So you claim you know god exists really?

On 1/30/2019 at 9:12 AM, thormas said:

Ro, Rom, Rom,

As Gggole is to me, reading carefully is to you, so, see earlier posts.

9 hours ago, romansh said:

No. 7 is the gnostic atheist position. 6.9 might be a "very" strong atheist position. I strongly believe there is no god but I can't be certain.

On 1/30/2019 at 9:12 AM, thormas said:

Maybe, but does Dawkins use this language in the scale or generally. And since there is no certainty, I see no difference between the atheist and so-called gnostic atheist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

lacking belief is to not believe

I agree 100% … My point completely … which in turn is different to believing something (ie god) exists or does not exist.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

. And actually I refered to the great middle ground of agnosticism which by its very nature in nuanced

And if you bothered to read what I have written you'll find I have said that theism and atheism are not mutually exclusive from agnosticism. And by some usage … theists are atheists with respect to Roman, Greek and Norse gods etc. You yourself have put yourself on the atheistic side with respect to them.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

No answers to what the 'somethings' are between the flavors.

Do some reading.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Ro, Rom, Rom,

As Gggole is to me, reading carefully is to you, so, see earlier posts.

You seem to claim there is no such thing as knowing and at the same time say claim 1 and 1.1 are the same. So the logical position is to claim there is no such thing as a 1.

Now I take your point it is all about belief … or perhaps thought or even just chemistry and physics. But there are people who claim the 1 and no doubt the 7 position. So it becomes ridiculous to claim 1 and 1.1 are the same when you don't believe in 1.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

And since there is no certainty

Are you certain of this? This paradox seems to keep flying you by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, romansh said:

I agree 100% … My point completely … which in turn is different to believing something (ie god) exists or does not exist.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, of course: 'having' belief or simply believing is to believe.

 

6 minutes ago, romansh said:

And if you bothered to read what I have written you'll find I have said that theism and atheism are not mutually exclusive from agnosticism. And by some usage … theists are atheists with respect to Roman, Greek and Norse gods etc. You yourself have put yourself on the atheistic side with respect to them.

I always read you. But it is apparent the pure theism (1) and pure atheism (&) do exclude agnosticism.

Actually, I'm not a theist but to go along with the though the theist(1) ejects the polytheistic Roman and Greek religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thormas said:

I'm not a theist

You don't believe in God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agnostic noun, a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence of or nature of God, or of anything beyond material phenomena.

atheism noun, the theory or belief that god does not exist.

deism noun, the belief in the existence of supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation.

theism noun, belief in the existence of gods or a god , especially a God supernaturally revealed to man and sustaining a personal relationship to his creatures.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition, 1990.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This how I generally use the terms … probably needs updating a bit as I can see some exceptions here.

beliefbubbles.jpg

Need some revision but not unreasonable, I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

agnostic noun, a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence of or nature of God, or of anything beyond material phenomena.

atheism noun, the theory or belief that god does not exist.

deism noun, the belief in the existence of supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation.

theism noun, belief in the existence of gods or a god , especially a God supernaturally revealed to man and sustaining a personal relationship to his creatures.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition, 1990.

To say I'm not a theistic is simply to say I don't believe God is supernaturally revealed to man.

I am a panentheist in that God is not a supreme being, outside of creation who must supernaturally reveal himself to man to be known. I don't believe in gods or god but I do believe that God IS (that all that is- is of god or in God or has its being in Being which is God. I believe in revelation but in a radically different way (explained in previous posts), I do belief God sustains humanity and creation but again in a very different way than mainstream christianity (again previously discussed). I do believe in evolution and am against creationism and finally I believe the God is the logical and ontological necessity for all (previously discussed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know all this … but you don't seem to appreciate the different uses around the term theist. 

I agree the terminology as it has developed is not ideal for clarity, therefore we should recognize that panentheism is a particular flavour of theism.  

6 minutes ago, thormas said:

I do belief God sustains humanity

This phrase alone makes you a theist … closer to deism or more specifically to a panentheist. 

7 minutes ago, thormas said:

… finally I believe the God is the logical and ontological necessity

This drives the nail home. You may very well be a 1.1 but you are not a 1 … in the same way Dawkins is a 6.9 and not a 7.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

I agree the terminology as it has developed is not ideal for clarity, therefore we should recognize that panentheism is a particular flavour of theism.  

That is precisely the point: the terminology has not developed or it is simply outdated altogether - unless it is someone like John Macquarie in his Dialectical Theism who indeed clarifies for modern readers.Sure pantheism, denim and panentheism might fall under the gereral term theism but when compared and contrasted they all radically differ from each other.So in effect and in reality they are not the same - unless someone is trying to oversimplify.

 

2 hours ago, romansh said:

This phrase alone makes you a theist … closer to deism or more specifically to a panentheist. 

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, since I just said they were different this is a mute point but  (just for fun) if one talks about God sustaining creation there is the external, outside view of theism, the more mechanical view of the deist and then there is the inside view of panentheism which in turn is radically different from pantheism.  

2 hours ago, romansh said:

This drives the nail home. You may very well be a 1.1 but you are not a 1 … in the same way Dawkins is a 6.9 and not a 7.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Classical theism would aay the same thing but the theistic God is external and outside the world and the primary ontological act is the moment of creation. Whereas, for the panentheism or dialectical theist God as the the logical and ontological necessity is not removed from or external from the world but present in all the ordinary, everyday moment of creation, sustaining and healing humanity/creation until it is fulfilled - with man, of course, as the co-creator.

So since I reject the scale because i don't accept that one can 'know' (especially with certainty) that God either does or doesn't exist. I am not even on the scale. However, as I change know to believe I am a full fledge 1 (0r 1.1 if it pleases you) since I believe, without doubt that God IS.

I don't was lie goose or gander sauce but I like Italian sauces for all.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, thormas said:

Sure pantheism, denim and panentheism might fall under the gereral term theism but when compared and contrasted they all radically differ from each other.So in effect and in reality they are not the same - unless someone is trying to oversimplify.

No one is claiming they are not different, radically or otherwise. But one of the meanings of theism is that it is a collective term for a belief in a god regardless of flavour. Even the term panentheism gives us a clue … all in god. I understand you wanting to distance yourself from orthodox theism, but the scale Dawkins is using, theism refers to is the collective term. 

 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, thormas said:

So since I reject the scale because i don't accept that one can 'know' (especially with certainty) that God either does or doesn't exist. I am not even on the scale. However, as I change know to believe I am a full fledge 1 (0r 1.1 if it pleases you) since I believe, without doubt that God IS.

The fact that you don't believe one can know whether there is a god is irrelevant (although a part of me agrees with you). What is the point, is, there are people who claim they do.

I believe, without doubt that God IS. Is that 100% probability/certainty? 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of people like myself, Bishop John Spong calls us "Christians in Exile" I for one walked away from evangelical fundamentalism, and found myself developing a deeper spiritual life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, apexcone said:

 … fund myself developing a deeper spiritual life.

Funnily enough  I am not sure what spiritual  means to other people. Is it something we should strive for, is it something that happens to us or maybe we should get on with our lives? What does spiritual mean to you? Answers on a back of a post card here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No postcard but .... While the word to me is a bit abstract perhaps one could say to be Spiritual  is to awaken to the discovery of our spirit, our connection to all things, the Oneness that is the substrate of all there is and to strive to stay attentive to what it is speaking. that we may operate in harmony with it. Not the same thing as the common understanding of being religious.

My 2 cents as usual,

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×