The Adult Theist Thread

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Thanks for a very long and thoughtful post. I do wonder, though, what you mean by that first assertion. Do you really mean that all theists are "people who are incapable of finding their own hope"? What does it mean to find your own hope?

I do not mean all theists. I could not possible make such a claim as I do not personally know all theists. Again, I would like to stress that these conclusions come from my observations of theism in my life. Predominantly the United states and Eastern Europe/Asia. I was not clear enough on this and I thank you for pointing that out.

What I mean by this is quite simply that God/higher power/spirituality are all sources of hope. When someone has reached the bottom and has nothing left to move on with, God is there. It gives people something to hold on to. An port in the storm if you will. Hope and passion are, in my opinion, the two most powerful human attributes. Theism has the power to inspire both of these, especially in times when they seem to be in short supply. That is why I see theism as important for some. For me, I have the detrimental attribute of being at my best when things are at their worst. I do not turn to God because, for me at least, it seems like a way to not try as hard. This is not true for all, just for me.

Dichanthelium wrote:

This strikes me as a very narrow view of religion. Are you sure your definition is not based primarily on observation of particular immature expressions of religion?

I am not only a student of theology but also of history. More acts of terror and hate have been committed in the name of religion than for any other reason in the world. I would like to point out that I am using the word religion and not theism. Religion seems more geared toward control while theism is geared more towards personal progress (if that makes any sense to you). I have been to many religious centers and have listened to many religious leaders and I find that the act of sitting in an audience, being spoken down to, led in prayer, led in song, led in readings or meditations and every other aspect of most religious ceremonies is designed, on a psychological level, to control you. I find the process to be flawed if the intent is to teach. (DISCLAIMER: I spent over 2 years researching, objectively, religious ceremonies from every major type of religion that I could find so just know that my claims are not entirely unfounded.)

Dichanthelium wrote:

What is the problem for which religion intends to provide a solution?

All problems. Religion is generally described as a moral foundation. If this is the case then it should be the answer to all moral questions (all problems of morality/all problems). The problem is that I often find theists only willing to preach their religion when it suits their needs and not often willing to follow it when they most should (in times of extreme moral dilemma). It is often the theist who is more aggressive when trying to prove their point regardless of their religion (for most religions any way) teaching calm patience and forgiveness.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Yes,

... this issue gets so beat to death I must confess to some measure of emerging apathy. But that's ok - so much of what we base ourselves on comes back to our theology. I engage it because it's an issue I think is important. That being said...

Dichanthelium wrote:

... It just seems that so many of the arguments purportedly against theism are really just arguments against fundamentalist Christianity ... So, why bother to refute something for which there are no proponents present?

[INDENT] Yea I've noticed this too; and have wondered why it's not balked at more. The answer to this "why", I believe, comes down to the simple fact that most people responding here review Religion in just such a context; it's what we know. I see it as understandable/excusable, but it *is* a bit narrowing; agreed.
[/INDENT]

bk-thinkaboom wrote:

... It annoys me when one other particular friend of mine denies even the slightest possibility of a Godly existence without any ounce of tangible justification...

[INDENT] Yea me too. I've been an atheist for a long, long time. My take is this: Anyone who tells you there cannot be any such 'god' - that no possibility exists - must also demonstrate their ultimate knowledge of all things in the universe; an exceedingly-difficult task indeed.
[/INDENT]

Aedes wrote:

Both sides of this debate overgeneralize... The problem, however, is not the lack of agreed-upon definitions, but rather that people seem to like lashing out broadly and ignore definitions.

[INDENT] Oh heck yea. We do this in virtually every aspect of philosophical discussion (here and everywhere else); We lump, whether it's people, races, nationalities, theologies or genders. I suppose it's understandable; again, but not forgivable. To couch our understanding of concepts I think it a natural inclination to pigeon-hole. It takes the most disciplined and open mind to fight off such tendencies - rational discussion is almost impossible when this tendency is left to run amuck.
[/INDENT]

boagie wrote:

... If one's beliefs are kept vague enough they indeed would insulate one from critizism, but then, the believer would not be saying much of any consequence, which in my opinion is often the case...

[INDENT] This is, perhaps, the most critical point in this discussion and speaks direction to the Opening Post. Twenty years ago, such a propensity was not often seen - most devout/debating theists I came in contact with had more 'concrete' notions of what god is. Today, and increasingly moreso as time goes on, I see theists retreat to the "God Is Everything", "God is Nothing", "One is One", "God is One", "All is God" and other such talk. While I respect the individuals and the feelings involved, this kind of murky-bambosity doesn't say anything that anyone can understand. It reduces the argument to inevitable absurdity since there's nothing 'substantive' to talk about. It virtually has no meaning - outside the mind of the person speaking - and retreats to a place of lofty poetry that makes no sense to others.

In such a place; any value once derived from talking about the benefit, effects, drawbacks or ethics lay ham stringed on the ground since there are no common-concepts on which to latch.
[/INDENT][INDENT]I don't know whence this comes; but I have to give the benefit of the doubt here and concede that people talking like this really believe it. For others, for the debate process and even for logic; the rest of us just end up shaking our heads and saying, "OK, whatever..." - there's nothing to latch onto for understanding.
[/INDENT]

boagie wrote:

The concrete concept of a god as of supernatural origin/nature is universally irrational...
Aedes wrote:
Traditional beliefs are not "universally irrational". We inherit many ideas from elders, community leaders, parents, and people we respect. It is rational to trust their word.

... though related, these seem to be two sides of the same coin.

If "rational" is used in terms of observables and reasonable conclusions based on our collectively-acknowledged natures and verifiable reality; then yes, any supposition of the supernatural is irrational.
Traditional belief, though likely overlapping the aforementioned, may or may not be rational.
I'd say it's rational to trust in a general sense, but to accept other undifferentiated concepts without question is not.

Dichanthelium wrote:

... Do you really mean that all theists are "people who are incapable of finding their own hope"? What does it mean to find your own hope?

[INDENT] I know this wasn't directed at me, but can I? huh? huh? Smile

To me - and I think this is *very* important - it means that in this human shell, I seek to find significance, purpose and meaning within the construct of what we perceive to be, collectively and within the bounds of observable phenomena. It means that I don't, out of fear, wonder or desperation fall into the trap of clinging to something my senses tells me there is no evidence. In short, it means that one finds hope in life without 'taking on' supernatural ideas which are: 1) Unverifiable, 2) Without common definition (and thereby spurious, by definition), 3) Divisive and 4) Volatile.
[/INDENT]Let me ask this: What happens to a concept when it's blurred out of existence? Does it have any meaning any more? Doesn't this "blurring"; this relative view of what may exist, diminish us? I'll never dismiss the possibility of something existing beyond my understanding - but I guess the uncouth part of me pleads: Why can't we keep our feet on the ground?

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

I have searched this thread like others and they all ignore the fact that certain people do not fit these cossy defined descriptions.For instance how do buddhists fit into these pidgeon holes are they theists or atheists?God or the lack of him appears the requisite for debate.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

I have searched this thread like others and they all ignore the fact that certain people do not fit these cossy defined descriptions.For instance how do buddhists fit into these pidgeon holes are they theists or atheists?God or the lack of him appears the requisite for debate.

That all depends... Religious Buddhists or Philosophical Buddhists? There is a difference. They straddle the line for the most part but the Religious Buddhists fit into the classification of theism as much as a Christian or Jew. After all, they're stories and lessons are riddled with mention of heaven and gods and, of course, Chi and then Buddha himself.

1 Reply

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

That all depends... Religious Buddhists or Philosophical Buddhists? There is a difference. They straddle the line for the most part but the Religious Buddhists fit into the classification of theism as much as a Christian or Jew. After all, they're stories and lessons are riddled with mention of heaven and gods and, of course, Chi and then Buddha himself.

Well i was refering to the budhists who see no god or gods but see reincarnation and the eventual attainment.Or those souls who see the possibility of heaven without god or may even believe in fairies or parallel universes this notion that god is the only basis for a belief system to debate is still the only option it appears.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

noun
Date: 1678

: belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Theism is the belief in god. Spirituality is different.

This is the dictionary definition. In my opinion, they are very much linked but should still be held in different regards. Does that make sense?

1 Reply

@Icon,

My point was that this debate appears to want to restrict the nature of belief and that discounts so much.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

I agree to a certain extent but I always feel that it is important for the ideas to come out. Eventually, we will explore each path necessary. Maybe not in this thread, maybe not in the next 5 threads about this topic but it will eventually happen.

Patience is a virtue mostly when Time is not a luxury.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Boagie, I'm quite disappointed in you. I wrote a very long and I think thoughtful thread trying to explore (and thereby validate) your point of view. If you won't even read it let alone respond, and you just give a pithy definition of mystery and then take your ball and go home, then I have to wonder if you're really invested in your point of view. I mean I'm one of the people here who largely agrees with you (at least in substance if not in style). If you can't even reach common ground with an ally, then why do you bother to take on people you disagree with?

Aedes,

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell

Metaphor: A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote.

transcends: Be greater in scope or size than some standard

God: The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

Levels: A position on a scale of intensity or amount or quality

intellectual: envolving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct

Is: Have an existence, be extant

I realize its incomplete, but, perhaps we can fully explore this at a later date---------lol!!:rolleyes:

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Boagie, you're doing lip service to your own argument. If you don't care enough to explore it, then why should I?

I know what the words mean. I wrote one of my longest ever posts here trying to elicit some insight from you about it. But you don't care. You're apathetically flinging a slogan around about God being a metaphor, without ANY exploration of the parameters of such a statement, without ever acknowledging the concept that metaphors are literary devices and not cognitive or cultural devices, without taking into account the different types of God and different types of Mystery even within the Christian tradition (let alone all others).

That's the last I say about it unless you want to make a meaningful effort. It's easy to sit there and rant the same line about metaphor over and over again. But it's not easy to actually show us that you mean something by it.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Mu . . . . . . . .

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

Icon wrote:

That all depends... Religious Buddhists or Philosophical Buddhists? There is a difference. They straddle the line for the most part but the Religious Buddhists fit into the classification of theism as much as a Christian or Jew. After all, they're stories and lessons are riddled with mention of heaven and gods and, of course, Chi and then Buddha himself.

I have to disagree with you here: Buddhists are not theists.

If you argue that because Buddhist legends contain accounts of deities that Buddhists are therefore theists, the argument is fundamentally flawed: Buddhist legends speak of many deities and so, rather than theists, one would be better off arguing that Buddhists are polytheists.

But that argument also fails when we look at the nature of these deities. Buddhist deities are, like humans, caught up in samsara. This makes Buddhist deities wildly different from western deities like the Gods of the Abrahamic faiths, so much so that calling Buddhists theists, or polytheists, appears inaccurate. It's the difficulty of apply western labels, like theism, to eastern faith traditions.

Chi is a Chinese concept, though there are comparable concepts in Vedic and Buddhist thought. But these concepts do not seem to be what we would call in the West, God.

As for the Buddha, I do not see how we can call him God and genuinely represent the Buddhist tradition.

I think this passage from the Diamond Sutra eliminates the possibility of calling Buddhists theists:

Diamond Sutra, Chpt. 3 wrote:

"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."

Those are the word attributed to the Buddha; notice the "universal self existing eternally".

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

DT, having been to a good 30 or 40 Buddhist temples in Kyoto, the amount of veneration of Buddha and boddhisatva images is comparable only to the iconography of orthodox Christianity.
And this is true throughout both the Mahayana tradition. In the Theravada tradition, the images are more restricted to the Buddha himself.

So while this techincally isn't theism because he's not technically a deity, there is very little distinction in practice. Jews regard Abraham and Moses as holy despite not being gods. Buddhism has its own prophet.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Am i being awkward in suggesting that theism is too narrow a concept in debating belief versus atheism?

1 Reply

@xris,

Aedes wrote:

DT, having been to a good 30 or 40 Buddhist temples in Kyoto, the amount of veneration of Buddha and boddhisatva images is comparable only to the iconography of orthodox Christianity.
And this is true throughout both the Mahayana tradition. In the Theravada tradition, the images are more restricted to the Buddha himself.

So while this techincally isn't theism because he's not technically a deity, there is very little distinction in practice. Jews regard Abraham and Moses as holy despite not being gods. Buddhism has its own prophet.

I have no doubt. Like I said, part of this is the trouble of using terminology developed for western traditions when talking about eastern traditions.

As Thomas Merton said: "Thich Nhat Hahn is my brother"

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

I agree (with both you and xris here).

We often cite the example of Buddhism as a counter to generalizations about atheists.

But there is some fallacy in that, because Buddhism has a lot more in common with other axial traditions than it does with modern post-enlightenment philosophical atheism.

Buddhism doesn't seem to care as much about the external questions about the world, because the god concept is very much internal. It's almost as If everyone is god.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Yes, I agree with about Buddhism and other axial age movements... but I wonder. One of the Buddha's more famous peers was Socrates: he is the Buddha of western philosophy. Now, both western philosophy and Buddhism have developed a great deal over the 2500 years or so since their birth.
I'm not sure about this fallacy in presenting Buddhism as a counterexample to modern atheism. The whole idea is to provide contrast, and Buddhism certainly does this. Though, it also seems to me that Buddhism is just as useful as a counterexample to western religion as it is a counterexample to modern atheism.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

I think that the Buddha and Socrates were similar only in their deontology. Other than that, Socrates seemed to have a metaphysical reasoning process (at least as expressed by Plato), whereas the Buddha had revealed truths that he'd come upon through life experience. In other words, Socrates' tradition was rational from the start; the Buddha's was not necessarily rationally derived (if it was it's not part of the tradition).

Buddhism (despite being ridiculously diverse) is a good counterexample to many things, I agree. But it's certainly best thought of as a religion, irrespective of the god question. The thing is that the narrative in Buddhism is the story of one's own life counterposed against the example of the Buddha's life. In the western tradition, religion is the story of humanity as a whole and then (starting from Abraham) the story of a subgroup.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

You're apathetically flinging a slogan around about God being a metaphor, without ANY exploration of the parameters of such a statement, without ever acknowledging the concept that metaphors are literary devices and not cognitive or cultural devices, without taking into account the different types of God and different types of Mystery even within the Christian tradition (let alone all others).

I've not read Jospeph Campbell widely but I did a course on storytelling at university which involved study of his book "The Hero with 1000 Faces".
I think Campbell's quote is actually an acknowledgement of the power of god and religious thinking.

I do think a metaphore can be a cognitive device. As a literary device we know it is something that stands for something else - a symbol. In this respect we can look at a cognitive metaphore as standing in for a thought process that someone may not want to unravel or examine too closely.

I reckon Campbell is suggesting that god is a symbol for everything that we cannot comprehend or control. "That which transcends all levels of intellectual thought". Hence the use of the word metaphore. I suppose it's a slightly classier word than symbol which would have appealed to Campbell's literary pretentions and those of his audience (note that I rather like literary pretentions myself and in no way see them as a bad thing).

I do find Campbell's assertion that it is "as simple as that" very irritating, because "that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought" doesn't seem simple to me at all.

It seems to me that Boagie is marrying this up to mystery as used by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is of course dismissive of god as a concept and would rather we didn't use h/Him as a metaphore but instead clarified what we do know and admitted that what we don't is just "unknowable for now".

So I suspect Dawkins is using the word "mystery" where Campbell would use the word "god".

However, I don't think Dawkins line of thinking really can be allied with Campbells. Campbell is a fan (if not exactly a follower) of religion.

So that's what I think of the quote - though like you I am somewhat bemused by Boagie's need to append it to all of his posts.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

The reason boagie posted the Campbell quote so often is, even if the topic will not be dealt with honestly then the simplicity of the understanding might just stare one in the face. God the mystery, "No mind has touched it, no tongue has soiled it." The Upanishads

http://us.st1.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/Img/trans_1x1.gif

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/highbridge-audio_2041_13399667

Power of Myth Programs 1-6 set by Joseph Campbell

with Bill Moyers

Bestseller

2 Replies

The Adult Theist Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know