Evolution?

[Father Heathen]

Even if it has already been said, it bears repeating; The concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Magic Man]

We do have that annoying habit don't we.
But that is the problem with 'tidy little pictures'... if biology has taught me anything it's that there is always an exception to the rules. So rules are more of general guides than hard laws to be clung to.


Absolutely...
IMHO God is as "human like" as it is "wolf like" or "star like" or whatever like.
Creator encompasses everything.

wa:do

So, you'd consider yourself a pantheist who believes in what you'd call a Creator?

I only ask because it's relevant to a discussion in another thread.

 

[Father Heathen]

Jayhawker Soule says more in a single sentence than most posters do in an entire post.

Right, because there's profound wisdom in calling everything unintelligent and childish without bothering to put forth a substantiated argument.

 

[painted wolf]

So, you'd consider yourself a pantheist who believes in what you'd call a Creator?

I only ask because it's relevant to a discussion in another thread.

As much as I dislike a lot of labels... that is I suppose as accurate as you can get... animist/pantheist...
The use of the term "Creator" is potentially confusing... but it's what I use in day to day reference to deity.

And I have no problem with you asking.
I'm quite ok with discussing my particular take on faith. And I'm sure it's relevant on a few threads.

wa:do

 

[rojse]

I'm not going to get any more sucked into this pointless discussion of Jay's merits than I already have, God willing, but I would like to point out that to employ any of the above "reasons" one must presume to know an awful lot about the inner life of "the person you are speaking to". Some might find that arrogant.

People in most cultures associate humility (the genuine kind) with wisdom. (I'm not making that up! It's been studied!) So if a person were to employ the above reasons and find themselves being frequently ignored, it would be their own doing.

In my view, the only valid reason for being openly dismissive of / rude to people you know nothing about is that you genuinely are a jerk, and to be respectful would be a dishonest representation of your character.

You can ascertain quite a lot from the post of an individual.

That said, while I can disrespect an individual's view in one area of discussion, I can think quite highly of them in another.

 

[Magic Man]

As much as I dislike a lot of labels... that is I suppose as accurate as you can get... animist/pantheist...
The use of the term "Creator" is potentially confusing... but it's what I use in day to day reference to deity.

And I have no problem with you asking.
I'm quite ok with discussing my particular take on faith. And I'm sure it's relevant on a few threads.

wa:do

Thanks, that supports my assertion perfectly. I was trying to tell someone that some pantheists would subscribe to what they might call the Creator.

 

[Magic Man]

That said, while I can disrespect an individual's view in one area of discussion, I can think quite highly of them in another.

Just as long as you realize that disrespecting someone's view, in most people's eyes, is disrespecting that someone. Disagreeing is one thing, but disrespecting is another.

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks, that supports my assertion perfectly. I was trying to tell someone that some pantheists would subscribe to what they might call the Creator.

I wouldn't say "perfectly" but I suppose it does support your position.
Creator in my view is the personification of a fairly abstract deity... I use the term "Creator" because the Cherokee name for creator is unknown to me. (indeed it is known by very few)

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Just as long as you realize that disrespecting someone's view, in most people's eyes, is disrespecting that someone. Disagreeing is one thing, but disrespecting is another.

As a theist who finds themselves arguing alongside atheists fairly often... I've run into more than one instance where my scientific knowledge is respected at the same time my faith is disrespected. One learns to live with dichotomy.

wa:do

 

[rojse]

Just as long as you realize that disrespecting someone's view, in most people's eyes, is disrespecting that someone. Disagreeing is one thing, but disrespecting is another.

What I might have said, should I have been somewhat more eloquent, is that I can disagree with someone's view in one area, while think highly of them in another.

There are some people's posts I have little respect for, but thankfully, this is a vast minority.

 

[rojse]

I wouldn't say "perfectly" but I suppose it does support your position.
Creator in my view is the personification of a fairly abstract deity... I use the term "Creator" because the Cherokee name for creator is unknown to me. (indeed it is known by very few)

wa:do

I might not agree with your opinions on theism, but I (and many other atheists) can respect your views while disagreeing with them.

If only more theists were like you, Painted Wolf.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks, that supports my assertion perfectly. I was trying to tell someone that some pantheists would subscribe to what they might call the Creator.

I think the term "Creator" is used pretty widely in Native spirituality. From what I gather, that's it's name, like "God", or "Allah". Except that it is nothing like "God" or "Allah", who made the world in one go and then kicked back to relax for the rest of eternity and torture unbelievers. It's not even like any of the vague, ineffable "God" concepts the West has devised. The feeling I get is that "the Creator" is a behind-the-scenes character in a rollicking, ongoing living story that involves the enthusiastic participation of every living thing. But I could be wrong, and would be happy to be corrected. I've listened to a lot of stories, songs and prayers, but I never asked anyone to explain anything to me.

 

[Alceste]

We do have that annoying habit don't we.
But that is the problem with 'tidy little pictures'... if biology has taught me anything it's that there is always an exception to the rules. So rules are more of general guides than hard laws to be clung to.


Absolutely...
IMHO God is as "human like" as it is "wolf like" or "star like" or whatever like.
Creator encompasses everything.

wa:do

Well, you can consider yourself exempt from all my rules, since they're only relevant in a dualistic context - where subject and object are considered to be two different things and the distinction between "truth" and "fiction" is thought to be hugely important. That accounts for almost all Western thought, but there are plenty of other ways to think, all of which are outside the scope of my casual generalizations. In fact, I think outside the scope of my generalizations myself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Creator in my view is the personification of a fairly abstract deity...

It's interesting that (relatively) new philological study of the term Elohim recognizesviews it as a grammatical form which one author defines as the "concretized abstract plural" - not an 'It' but the personification (I prefer reification) of a set of only partially grasped attributes.

 

[fantome profane]

Thanks, that supports my assertion perfectly. I was trying to tell someone that some pantheists would subscribe to what they might call the Creator.

Watch your terms, be careful you are not confusing pantheist with panentheists.

 

[painted wolf]

I might not agree with your opinions on theism, but I (and many other atheists) can respect your views while disagreeing with them.

Always good to hear. I must admit every once in a while someone makes me doubt.

If only more theists were like you, Painted Wolf.

Ah, but if there were, I wouldn't be quite as amazing as I am. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I think the term "Creator" is used pretty widely in Native spirituality. From what I gather, that's it's name, like "God", or "Allah". Except that it is nothing like "God" or "Allah", who made the world in one go and then kicked back to relax for the rest of eternity and torture unbelievers. It's not even like any of the vague, ineffable "God" concepts the West has devised. The feeling I get is that "the Creator" is a behind-the-scenes character in a rollicking, ongoing living story that involves the enthusiastic participation of every living thing. But I could be wrong, and would be happy to be corrected. I've listened to a lot of stories, songs and prayers, but I never asked anyone to explain anything to me.

"Creator" is a useful replacement when the actual name is to sacred to say. Names hold very powerful meaning for First Nations peoples.
Creator is both a character in the living story and the great abstraction. Involved and uninvolved in the world at the same time. It gets pretty complicated from nation to nation and from "story" to "reality".

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

It's interesting that (relatively) new philological study of the term Elohim recognizesviews it as a grammatical form which one author defines as the "concretized abstract plural" - not an 'It' but the personification (I prefer reification) of a set of only partially grasped attributes.

That is interesting... It seems to make sense, with what little I've learned about Jewish theology. It is difficult to take an abstract notion like god and solidify it into a workable 'thing'.

I tend to think that is the problem with many faiths is forcing the abstract into something solid. IMHO it's unhealthy.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that is not the argument being made. Rather, it is argued that beginnings are caused, and that if one posits a beginning to nature and the cosmos as a whole, then this First Cause must by definition be preternatural and ineffable.

You infer quite a bit from "psssss: Where did the particle come from?"
Also, exactly how do you define preternatural, and how do you support your assertion that the First Cause must by definition be preternatural?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is interesting... It seems to make sense, with what little I've learned about Jewish theology. It is difficult to take an abstract notion like god and solidify it into a workable 'thing'.

It also makes sense with what little I've learned about the polytheism of the early Jews.