tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95187839245534827.post5653837851901075601..comments2023-05-23T05:30:29.263-05:00Comments on Bobtuse Commentary: The God PotBob MacNealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10801726652392064788noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95187839245534827.post-7769752716316229632013-01-31T17:19:50.046-06:002013-01-31T17:19:50.046-06:00from varieties of religious experience...
To this...from varieties of religious experience...<br /><br />To this extent, to the extent of disbelieving peremptorily in certain types of deity, I frankly confess that we must be theologians. If disbeliefs can be said to constitute a theology, then the prejudices, instincts, and common sense which I chose as our guides make theological partisans of us whenever they make certain beliefs abhorrent....<br /><br />The deity to whom the prophets, seers, and devotees who founded the particular cult bore witness was worth something to them personally. They could use him. He guided their imagination, warranted their hopes and controlled their will....they chose him for the value of the fruits he seemed to them to yield. So soon as the fruits began to seem quite worthless...when we cease to admire or approve what the definition of a deity implies, we end by deeming that deity incredible.<br /><br />Heather Kindemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08499127337751632608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95187839245534827.post-75017001955008675532013-01-27T18:47:09.998-06:002013-01-27T18:47:09.998-06:00You're also right that mine is not a "gar...You're also right that mine is not a "garden variety" deism. I don't have an absolute belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to prove the existence of god. I suppose I am defining a personal concept of "god" that is the vast unknown. Inquiry into and discovery of phenomena in the vast unknown is grounded in reason and observation (because those are our primary tools).Bob MacNealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801726652392064788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95187839245534827.post-15181544020209818182013-01-27T18:15:53.300-06:002013-01-27T18:15:53.300-06:00I suppose I do make leaps of faith every day. And ...I suppose I do make leaps of faith every day. And you're right that my "god" is my relationship with the cosmos. Yikes! I AM a deist. Probably garden variety too. It's relief to have a label. I will read more philosophers like Hume. Thank you Colonel Nik.Bob MacNealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801726652392064788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95187839245534827.post-1412629260266567722013-01-27T16:22:47.844-06:002013-01-27T16:22:47.844-06:00Sorry, Bob; you're a deist, although not a gar...Sorry, Bob; you're a deist, although not a garden-variety kind. You make hundreds if not thousands of leaps of faith every single day. You probably would need to do this in order to get out of bed in the morning, let alone survive. The only way to avoid these leaps is to become phenomenological to the extreme: to the point at which you can take NOTHING for granted, not even your own ratiocinations. Your "god" is your relationship with the cosmos itself; an interplay of learning and testing your faith constantly. The god of Spinoza. Remember science does not say "this is true" or "this is false". It merely says "the evidence points to x". We make a leap of faith with that evidence. This isn't something new, this is straight David Hume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problemColonel Nikolaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08580281432776550606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95187839245534827.post-78908423533283307462013-01-27T14:41:32.665-06:002013-01-27T14:41:32.665-06:00Thanks dog. I hadn't heard of anti-theism so I...Thanks dog. I hadn't heard of anti-theism so I'm throwing that in the god pot for further review.Bob MacNealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801726652392064788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95187839245534827.post-66274192867306906912013-01-27T14:36:50.440-06:002013-01-27T14:36:50.440-06:00Atheism is a rejection of the current definition o...Atheism is a rejection of the current definition of God. When Nietzsche says "God is dead." he adds "We have killed him." Nietzsche is not denying the existence of any God, he is just saying the current definition of God has made God irrelevant. Denying that there ever was or could be God would be antitheism. I believe your ditty has confused atheism and antitheism. <br /><br />I think any acceptance of any 'soul' that does not begin and end with the conception and death of the physical person requires some theism, even if it does not fit the current definition. Like Lucretius, I believe the soul dies with our death. Calling myself an antitheist is unnecessary. I just don't care. <br /><br />I do believe organized religions are superstitious delusions and that religions are invariably cruel. And, like Lucretius, my goal is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain.doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13230993714329888110noreply@blogger.com