Chumly- I hear what you are trying to get across, but I am having difficulty in going along with your reasoning. Let us say that the concept of "rational theism" could encompass the entire spectrum of religious thought, including those of a personal nature, not connected to any defined religion, and of kinds and types not yet described.
That concept may be more benevolent, and more inclusive, but, IMO, is no more rational that the belief in one popular religion or another. There are infinite possibilities, and at this point in our evolution, man does not have the foggiest notion of the truth, although some may claim that they do, loudly.
Although what I think that you are attempting to express is the possibility that there may be a life force that is quite unlike the sorts of things that one hears in houses of worship, that supposition cannot be considered any more rational than the ones that have been formerly promulagated. Bottom line is, no one really knows.
I make no argument that the belief in god itself is rational, I make no argument that the rational Theist's beliefs in all personifications of god is rational. I make no argument that the rational Theist's concepts may be more benevolent. I make no argument that there may be a life force that is quite unlike the sorts of things that one hears in houses of worship. I make no argument that the rational Theist must embrace the entire spectrum of religious thought.
. . .
The rational Theist must accept that all types of god have equal merit. . .
The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god." (This does not impute what the rational Theist could accept but only what the rational Theist could not accept). . .
I coined the phrase for lack of a better term, and not to be taken literally. . .
Rational egoism is the philosophical view that it is rational to act in one's own self-interest. Rational egoism is distinguished from psychological egoism in that this is not a claim about how people actually act, and from ethical egoism that it is not morally imperative to act egoistically.
all metaphysical is non-rational.
all religion is metaphysical.
all metaphysical is non-rational.
all religion is metaphysical.
Hi there queenie.
I am a rational egoist, and I think it is quite logical.
Perhaps if the Egoist in question has no foresight. Ones best interest extends past ones next move, you know.
It is in my best interests to care for my loved ones. Why? because I love them, and it gives me pleasure to do so. It is in my best interests to save my money. I like having money.
It is also in my best interests for people to like me. I can get more done that way.
Why are Christians and Muslims and Jews irrational as per an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being, when there is just as much likelihood that god is personified in, or as, polytheist non-corporeal beings and/or a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things?
Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief in no way exclusively delineates god.
Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief, in no way makes other contradictory beliefs of god less likely.
- The rational Theist must accept that all types of god have equal merit.
- The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god.
Rational Theists Step Forward!
)
I think what chum-o is saying, is that given a belief in a creator deity based on several theistic arguments for same, what is to say he is not a real physical being, in a real physical place? Or a council of beings. Or an entire civilization of beings.
What makes the non-corporeal monotheistic being more likely?
And if that isn't what he is saying, it is what I'm saying now
