Non-Theists: Reasonable Theism?

[Kilgore Trout]

Forum Note - Same-Faith Debates.


Is there such a thing as a reasonable theistic belief system?

They're all generally reasonable when you understand the context and history of the religion and the people who follow it. Most religions would be reasonable for most people as they don't have a strong drive to question anything.

Are all forms of theism equally irrational, or do some have more merit than others?

They are all irrational, yet some are more easily identifiable as such than others.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Forum Note - Same-Faith Debates.


Is there such a thing as a reasonable theistic belief system? Are all forms of theism equally irrational, or do some have more merit than others?

I think theism can be reasonable within itself, which means that within the doctrines of the faith you can of course try to argue rationally.

The problem with theism in general is that the doctrines can't be argued about and therefor it is unreasonable from a less limited perspective.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem with theism in general is that the doctrines can't be argued about and therefor it is unreasonable from a less limited perspective.

Nonsense. These arguments and discussion go on all the time at various levels.

 

[Smoke]

Is there such a thing as a reasonable theistic belief system? Are all forms of theism equally irrational, or do some have more merit than others?

It seems quite obvious to me that not all theisms are created equal. I find some theisms very appealing -- though I don't find any of them convincing -- and the ability to be reasonable is a big part of what makes them appealing.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Nonsense. These arguments and discussion go on all the time at various levels.

The fundamental belief cant be argued.
I havent seen any christian argue against the existence of God while staying/being a christian.

 

[Storm]

The fundamental belief cant be argued.
I havent seen any christian argue against the existence of God while staying/being a christian.

I think Spong would qualify, but I don't know much about him. ETA: Of course, I'm not sure he can still be called a theist.

 

[Nepenthe]

The universe is much greater than we understand or could ever understand. We do not know, and in all likelihood will never know, the ultimate mystery behind the universe, its true nature and causation, nor is it reasonable to think we would. When I look at the vast area beyond our understanding, my best guess about what that looks like is an unimaginably powerful and incomprehensible creative force or being, God. I acknowledge that I could be wrong, but that is my best guess, which I call "faith." I surmise that this force or being is in some way that I cannot understand, responsible for the entire universe, for the laws of physics that in turn created all life on this planet and many other wonders we will never know.

I agree that I'd consider such an interpretation reasonable yet unconvincing to myself. It's similar to variations of theism- I'm reminded of Martin Gardner, whose henotheism is simply that he believes 'cause it offers him comfort. He acknowledges the philosophical arguments for theism are unconvincing, and even that the classic atheist arguments are more convincing, he doesn't believe in an afterlife and is one of the prominent skeptics of the 20th century on pseudoscience and the supernatural. But he believes because it makes his appreciation of life that much better.

My wife's apatheism is reasonable as well. She simply finds the god subject so utterly irrelevant that if She did exist Her influence on the world is so irrelevant She might as well be perpetually absent. And if She doesn't exist, well then my wife lives her life the exact same way.

I also see Storm's ineffable pananetheism reasonable. I disagree that any of these are convincing to myself but I suppose that's besides the point. These variations of theism/panentheism are reasonably arrived conclusions that I just don't happen to share.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, you haven't actually answered this. I'm genuinely curious, and I won't be offended if you disapprove.

Well ineffable means it can't be expressed, right? So that seems kind of a conversation stopper. And isn't it contradictory to say on the one hand that God can't be expressed or described, and then start describing a specific pantheon. Wait, let me be more clear. If your basic thing is that God is ineffable, then why put any effort into "eff"ing God? You've already said it can't be done. What are you trying to accomplish?

An ineffable God makes me think again of a Deist type God, that may or may not exist, but if It does, has exactly zero effect on my life.

I mean, why can't people just put a question mark there and leave it at that? It seems dishonest to me when people start making assertions about something we couldn't possibly know. As soon as, for example, someone starts telling me what's going to happen after I die, I assume they're lying--they don't know any more than I do.

But more importantly, for me, "able to be perceived" is the functional equivalent of "exists." Or, to get all pretentious about it, epistemology is ontology. (I was a philosophy major once, centuries ago.)

 

[Storm]

Well ineffable means it can't be expressed, right? So that seems kind of a conversation stopper. And isn't it contradictory to say on the one hand that God can't be expressed or described, and then start describing a specific pantheon. Wait, let me be more clear. If your basic thing is that God is ineffable, then why put any effort into "eff"ing God? You've already said it can't be done. What are you trying to accomplish?

I just have to, it's a compulsion. And it's hard to obsess over something for 17 years and not come up with a few ideas.

I mean, why can't people just put a question mark there and leave it at that?

When have people ever been satisfied with that? Never. We're curious animals, why should God be any different?

It seems dishonest to me when people start making assertions about something we couldn't possibly know.

I think that's pushing it. How is it dishonest to say "We can never know for sure, but here's what I think"?

 

[Autodidact]

I just have to, it's a compulsion. And it's hard to obsess over something for 17 years and not come up with a few ideas.


When have people ever been satisfied with that? Never. We're curious animals, why should God be any different?


I think that's pushing it. How is it dishonest to say "We can never know for sure, but here's what I think"?

Theists rarely do say that, do they? Rather they tend to say ridiculous things (overheard right here at RF) like, "We know that Jesus died to save us," or "I know that God condemns homosexuality," or "I believe there was a global flood because of my faith." Or they just make assertions, like, "When you die, you'll find out about my God." (which like I said lets me know they're lying, because they have no idea what will happen when I die, and that seems the least likely possibility.) So, to come back to the thread, yes, a reasonable theism would have to be an agnostic theism.

In fact, if I did meet an agnostic theist, who said that faith was just their best attempt to connect the dots and squint, that they acknowledged the unlikelihood of their being right, but were just doing their best, and it looked like God to them, I would find that delightfully reasonable.

 

[Storm]

Theists rarely do say that, do they? Rather they tend to say ridiculous things (overheard right here at RF) like, "We know that Jesus died to save us," or "I know that God condemns homosexuality," or "I believe there was a global flood because of my faith." Or they just make assertions, like, "When you die, you'll find out about my God." (which like I said lets me know they're lying, because they have no idea what will happen when I die, and that seems the least likely possibility.) So, to come back to the thread, yes, a reasonable theism would have to be an agnostic theism.

In fact, if I did meet an agnostic theist, who said that faith was just their best attempt to connect the dots and squint, that they acknowledged the unlikelihood of their being right, but were just doing their best, and it looked like God to them, I would find that delightfully reasonable.

Granted, but I thought we were discussing me. God, that sounded narcissistic.

 

[Autodidact]

And I don't know that I care very much any more whether someone is deliberately dishonest or just awfully careless about what they believe; they're just as unreliable either way. I think we have a moral duty to make our best effort to figure out what is true, not just to state our beliefs accurately.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, clicked on your link again to try to remember about you so I could talk about you. It's a little hard to understand words I never heard of before. Are they original with you?

1)The divine consciousness
2)The divine seed of mortal consciousness, not seeming (my rhys; our rhys)

Seeming:
Life is a spectrum, the infinitely complex interaction of rhys and divine matter.

So by parsing I get: The infinitely complex interaction of divine consciousness and divine matter.

My first question: What does "divine" mean in this context? What does the adjective "divine" add here, other than flavor? Just for fun, I cut it down to: Life is the interaction between consciousness and matter. O.K. Says who? Is that a definition? A characterization? Does this include viruses? Bacteria? Mold spores?

Next question: How do you know there is such thing as divine consciousness? Again, it's starting to look like there is no consciousness outside of a brain.

matter -> biochemistry -> cells -> organs -> brain -> psyche -> spirit -> rhys.

What are the arrows? Causation? You couldn't use words? Is it a hierarchy? Aren't the last 3 awfully speculative?

If your base belief is that God is ineffable, shouldn't you state that upfront?

Roth (short O.) is the true reality of God. The 3 elements of roth are arn, rhys, and divine matter.

O.K., I'll admit it. I'm ridiculously widely read. I'm addicted to reading, and have read several books a week for over 40 years. I've never heard of any of these words. So it's like reading: Quafoo is the true reality of God. The 3 elements of Quaffoo are fritznort, spelk and divine (whatever that means) matter. [How is divine matter different from ordinary matter?] I mean, c'mon, Storm, it's gibberish. Making up words is kind of cheating, don't you think? It's not like English doesn't already have the largest vocabulary of any known language. It's asking a lot of your readers. And it sounds funny. So at this point I can't grasp what you believe. I have to practically learn esperanto!

God. The divine being which is the roth.

Wait a minute. I'm trying to follow along. I thought "roth" meant "the true reality of God." Now you're saying that God is the true reality of God? ***? Is that meaningful?

How do you even know there is a divine being?


Elders:
Those individual rhys who have fully Become.

Wha? Hold on. Rhys is divine consciousness, right? Now you're saying there are individual Ryses? Rhysi? What, divine consciousness comes in pieces? Your use of words is very hard to follow, especially the new ones. And how does capitalizing a verb in the middle of the sentence help me understand? O.K., I'm editing now, I better stop.

 

[Storm]

Auto, it was never my intention to hijack this thread with my theology. I'd be happy to discuss it with you in the Any Questions thread, though. Would you be so kind as to move or copy your post there?

 

[rojse]

I think that there are quite a few theistic beliefs that I find reasonable. I might not agree with their views, but I can respect the person and their viewpoint.

But there are a few viewpoints and ideas that I disagree with.

I find the entire idea of the "personal phone-line to God" to be extremely unreasonable - this person and this person only has the complete idea of what God wants, and what God is like, and needs to tell everyone else about it.

People that try to justify bigoted and intolerant behaviours by selectively citing passages from their relevant religious work. Or not even bothering with that, and saying it's "what God wants". If someone wants to be a bigot, they should not try and excuse themselves by using the religious book as a shield.

Anyone who completely ignores science, history, logic, archaeology, or the like unless it agrees with their views. If someone has legitimate questions regarding some part of science, I can accept that, but if another person attempts to address this ignorance and the response is ignored, I have do not have respect for that. I have no problem with someone being unknowledgeable in certain regards, but continued wilful ignorance is another matter entirely.

Other than those main complaints, I think that theism can be quite reasonable. I even have the pleasure of talking to some of the reasonable theists here on RF.