How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[james bond]

What nut-job came up with "Pure Agnostic"?

Richard Dawkins.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd have to re-familiarize myself with his positions on it to answer. I haven't paid attention to the "new atheist" brigade in years and so have forgotten stuff.

So you're sure you have a problem with him, but can't give any specifics.

I do find that those trained the "hard sciences" who comment on religion often don't understand it, though. They tend to view things through empirical lenses and misunderstand the sociological aspect of it.

You mean someone like Francis Collins? Does his training in the hard sciences disqualify him from commenting on religion?

Or is only the scientists who don't accept religion themselves who misunderstand it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you're sure you have a problem with him, but can't give any specifics.


You mean someone like Francis Collins? Does his training in the hard sciences disqualify him from commenting on religion?

Or is only the scientists who don't accept religion themselves who misunderstand it?

I am referring to people like Dawkins who treat religion as some sort of disease.

 

[james bond]

One thing we can all learn from this thread is how Dawkins simplistic scale doesn't really take into account the wide variety of beliefs and world views.
Tom

I agree and that's why we have a forum, too. I don't think one can account for it all in a poll. Otherwise, one gets too many questions to answer. That's why I put "Other" for people who interpreted what the categories said to not reflect them or had other beliefs. I give Dawkins credit that he came up with this.

 

[columbus]

Richard Dawkins.

No he didn't. He just used the term.

He has to be a little confusing in his terminology because the ideas he is critiquing are held by irrational people. That complicates the discussion.
If religious people would, for example, come up with a universal and rational meaning for the word "religion" it would be helpful. Christianity is another complicated term. Is it the dominant world religion, or only the people who agree with you?
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am referring to people like Dawkins who treat religion as some sort of disease.

That's right: religion's critics are unqualified to comment on religion, but similarly-credentialed proponents of religion are not. Isn't that what you're saying?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One thing we can all learn from this thread is how Dawkins simplistic scale doesn't really take into account the wide variety of beliefs and world views.
Tom

I'm personally surprised how even Dawkins often approaches religion from a "monotheist-normative" mindset where classical monotheism is taken as some sort of "standard" theism.

 

[james bond]

What does that have to do with the vernacular usage and literary conventions and respectful intentions that go into deciding whether or not to capitalize God/god in a specific context?
Tom

It's not just vernacular, literary and respectful conventions, but academic, too. I sided with the academics since religion and philosophy are more serious subjects and lead to a formal degree. Both Stanford and Internet encyclopedias of philosophy are peer-reviewed by people in academia.

 

[Liu]

"Thanks for the information. "

I would not put too much faith in what he said. I am willing to bet for many atheists it is about the grammar.

Then thank you for the warning - but my thanks didn't refer to the grammar but about the info that the list is directly by Dawkins, not just based on his words, and on the info that the thread's question only refers to the Abrahamic god.

I'm glad that Dawkins' list came in handy and has helped you to identify yourself more readily. I have not seen a similar list. As for capitalization, I have updated it from what I read in Stanford. It refers to the major monotheistic religions. Also, in English grammar, proper nouns are capitalized. Thanks for your reply.

Now that sounds like in the original quote it wasn't capitalized if you had to update something?

 

[james bond]

I'm personally surprised how even Dawkins often approaches religion from a "monotheist-normative" mindset where classical monotheism is taken as some sort of "standard" theism.

Academia? If you become prominent in religion, philosophy or even science that has to do with theism or non-theism, then I'm pretty sure you'll end up meeting people in academia. There is money there. The other theisms that you refer to aren't considered big enough to be included.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Academia? If you become prominent in religion, philosophy or even science that has to do with theism or non-theism, then I'm pretty sure you'll end up meeting people in academia. There is money there. The other theisms that you refer to aren't considered big enough to be included.

I nominate this for chauvinistic post of the week.

 

[columbus]

I'm personally surprised how even Dawkins often approaches religion from a "monotheist-normative" mindset where classical monotheism is taken as some sort of "standard" theism.

Probably for the same reason I do. We live in a world dominated by Abrahamic religious people.
Hindus have issues and pagans have issues etc., but it is Christians and Muslims and Jews causing the problems I experience.
I am not an antitheist. But I do understand why Dawkins tends to accentuates Abrahamic religious nonsense.
Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What nut-job came up with "Pure Agnostic"?

Richard Dawkins.

How sad. I rather enjoyed his books.

 

[james bond]

Now that sounds like in the original quote it wasn't capitalized if you had to update something?

No, I took it verbatim in the OP. It's in his book, The God Delusion. I added Other in the poll as explained.

 

[james bond]

How sad. I rather enjoyed his books.

Did you read The God Delusion?

 

[james bond]

I nominate this for chauvinistic post of the week.

Ha ha. I posted the other monotheistic religions link, but I couldn't find them in my two academic sources.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again let me emphasize that my direct exposure to Rabbi Wine was limited to a rather long dinner with a handful of people and a few Shabbat services; I claim no ability to channel the man.

I suspect that Rabbi Wine had little respect for theism in a formal sense. Rather than deeply admiring it, he found it ill conceived. But that is a far cry from disrespecting the theist by ...



Rather, I can imagine a discussion between Rabbi Wine (RW) and some hypothetical theist (HT) progressive roughly as follows ...

• HT
  Rabbi, do you believe in God?
• RW
  What do you mean by God?
• HT
  < any one of a myriad of answers >
• RW
  I don't see a God so described as necessary so, no, I do not believe in such a God as yours.
• HT
  Well, is there any definition of God that you might believe in?
• RW
  I know of none. More to the point, it seems to me that anything worthy of the appellation would be inherently undefinable, and I do not see how I could believe in something that transcends definition.

The difference between that and the way I put it seems more to do with tactful phrasing than with the actual implications of the position.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you read The God Delusion?

No. I focused on those where, in my opinion, he has earned some credibility:

• The Selfish Gene
• The Blind Watchmaker
• Climbing Mount Improbable

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The difference between that and the way I put it seems more to do with tactful phrasing than with the actual implications of the position.

If you insist. Still, I would not try to position ignosticism somwhere on the atheism-theism arc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you insist. Still, I would not try to position ignosticism somwhere on the atheism-theism arc.

I would. A person who doesn't even consider the term "god" to be meaningful necessarily believes in nothing they consider a god. An ignostic cannot be a theist, and therefore must be an atheist.

Edit: FYI - I consider myself both an ignostic and an atheist, and I see no way for an ignostic to be anything other than an atheist.