*Theists* Classical Theism or Theistic Personalism? And why?

[RedDragon94]

 

[Reflex]

Good video. Did you watch the others?

 

[Tyho]

Agnostic Theist.

I believe in a Supreme Intelligence, God, so I suppose that makes me a Theist. But I don't claim to know anything for certain about the properties and attributes of the Creator, which remains a complete mystery to me, so there's some kind of agnosticism there. (This is also a convenient label to distinguish my beliefs from the Judeo-Christian religions).

Other than that, I am leaning more towards Classical Theism than Theistic Personalism.

Here's a very good blogpost to expand on the notion discussed in the video:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2010/09/classical-theism.html

 

[Reflex]

Agnostic Theist.

I believe in a Supreme Intelligence, God, so I suppose that makes me a Theist. But I don't claim to know anything for certain about the properties and attributes of the Creator, which remains a complete mystery to me, so there's some kind of agnosticism there. (This is also a convenient label to distinguish my beliefs from the Judeo-Christian religions).

Other than that, I am leaning more towards Classical Theism than Theistic Personalism.

Here's a very good blogpost to expand on the notion discussed in the video:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2010/09/classical-theism.html

Feser's The Last Superstition and God Without Parts by James Dolezal are good books and go into greater detail than the video(s).

 

[Riverwolf]

...I... assume this is primarily for monotheists? The video even starts by explaining that it's primarily talking about the theisms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm not sure either of these two applies to polytheisms, at least no polytheist form that I know of.

 

[Jiddanand]

What?

 

[Quintessence]

...I... assume this is primarily for monotheists? The video even starts by explaining that it's primarily talking about the theisms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm not sure either of these two applies to polytheisms, at least no polytheist form that I know of.

Reasons why I think the phrase "classical theism" as used in academia is in dire need of relabeling as "classical monotheism."

Though watching the video, non-monotheisms seem to fall closer to the "personalism" side. Is that what you felt looking at it, RW?

 

[RedDragon94]

Good video. Did you watch the others?

Only the first one, it was late.

 

[RedDragon94]

...I... assume this is primarily for monotheists? The video even starts by explaining that it's primarily talking about the theisms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm not sure either of these two applies to polytheisms, at least no polytheist form that I know of.

That's what the video says. I'm just asking because.

 

[Riverwolf]

Reasons why I think the phrase "classical theism" as used in academia is in dire need of relabeling as "classical monotheism."

Though watching the video, non-monotheisms seem to fall closer to the "personalism" side. Is that what you felt looking at it, RW?

I did. Based on the video's descriptions, it's still not an accurate term, but it's definitely closer than what was being described as "classical", at least for me as a Heathen. Since "classical" also often refers to Greco-Roman culture, there might be some forms of polytheist Hellenismos and Religio Romana that fall closer to this "classical theism" idea, but I couldn't say how widespread or influential they'd be if they existed. (Or even what they'd look like).

That's what the video says. I'm just asking because.

I understand. It's just that the thread title says "theists", which implies all theists, poly, mono, and otherwise. That's what drew me here, only to find that I don't really apply. Still, the video was interesting, and certainly helped illustrate to me Academia's continued heavy bias towards monotheism as some kind of default.

 

[RedDragon94]

I understand. It's just that the thread title says "theists", which implies all theists, poly, mono, and otherwise. That's what drew me here, only to find that I don't really apply. Still, the video was interesting, and certainly helped illustrate to me Academia's continued heavy bias towards monotheism as some kind of default.

Is the Divine the "complete other" or can he be described by human means?
Basically can we understand God by human means?

 

[RedDragon94]

I understand. It's just that the thread title says "theists", which implies all theists, poly, mono, and otherwise. That's what drew me here, only to find that I don't really apply. Still, the video was interesting, and certainly helped illustrate to me Academia's continued heavy bias towards monotheism as some kind of default.

It may actually go a little deeper than the questions I asked.

 

[Quintessence]

Is the Divine the "complete other" or can he be described by human means?
Basically can we understand God by human means?

That's a good way of re-framing the question, so thank you for that.

In polytheistic/pantheistic/animistic theologies, the default assumption is divine immanence, not transcendence. In other words, the god(s) are not "other" so asking "can gods be described and understood by human means" is not distinct from asking "can anything be described and understood by human means." Setting aside the obvious limitations of being human and the whole maps of territory issue, the answer to that is undoubtedly "yes."

 

[RedDragon94]

That's a good way of re-framing the question, so thank you for that.

In polytheistic/pantheistic/animistic theologies, the default assumption is divine immanence, not transcendence. In other words, the god(s) are not "other" so asking "can gods be described and understood by human means" is not distinct from asking "can anything be described and understood by human means." Setting aside the obvious limitations of being human and the whole maps of territory issue, the answer to that is undoubtedly "yes."

Right, if we don't understand nature we don't understand ourselves. As I think about it I wonder why people would worship a transcendent being, I mean, the deity doesn't have any connection to you except that he created you.

 

[Quintessence]

Right, if we don't understand nature we don't understand ourselves. As I think about it I wonder why people would worship a transcendent being, I mean, the deity doesn't have any connection to you except that he created you.

Personally, I don't understand the appeal either. Then again, I also don't understand the appeal of American football, so it is probably just a matter of aesthetic preference. *chuckles*

 

[RedDragon94]

Personally, I don't understand the appeal either. Then again, I also don't understand the appeal of American football, so it is probably just a matter of aesthetic preference. *chuckles*

I think classical theism might as well be deism because that's all God is, a creator.

American football is all about proving to people that you're the man, and you're the resident tree hugger. So, no I wouldn't expect that from you.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is the Divine the "complete other" or can he be described by human means?
Basically can we understand God by human means?

Human analogies are often the only way to understand the Gods. Hence why they're always depicted in anthropomorphic terms, even when knowing that Thunder is not literally a red-beared man.

 

[RedDragon94]

Human analogies are often the only way to understand the Gods. Hence why they're always depicted in anthropomorphic terms, even when knowing that Thunder is not literally a red-beared man.

Right, I think that God may be a human idea that symbolizes a certain part of nature. This isn't my official view though.

 

[RedDragon94]

Human analogies are often the only way to understand the Gods. Hence why they're always depicted in anthropomorphic terms, even when knowing that Thunder is not literally a red-beared man.

Why do you think the Norse valued thunder?

 

[Quintessence]

Human analogies are often the only way to understand the Gods. Hence why they're always depicted in anthropomorphic terms, even when knowing that Thunder is not literally a red-beared man.

What?!? It is too!!



(mythological literalism - gets really silly when applied to... well... anything, really)