Tuesday, June 1, 2010
New "D" symbol for Deist movement courtesy of Scott of Amorian.org
http://www.amorian.org/2009/07/30/new-and-improved-deism-symbo
Monday, March 22, 2010
Deist "Out Campaign"
Hey Deists: why don't we start, hold, and have a Deist "Out Campaign", as well as annual celebrations of some sort, like the out campaign our friends in the new atheists have. Atheists are coming out of the closet, Deists as fellow rationalists and freethinkers should Join Atheists and also Agnostics and come out. We and our view(Deism) too are the subject of persecution and misunderstanding{particularly by revealed religionists/theists, but even sometimes by our freethinking kin- atheists}. But Deists have much to be proud for, Deists have made many great and positive contributions and Deists as well as the philosophy of Deism itself have had great influence in bringing the enlightenment to fruition. We should step out of the closet and make our voices known and the philosophy of Deism known as a rational freethinking alternative viewpoint.
The Atheist "Out Campaign" has a symbol and website and a mobilized movement. I would like to see us achieve the same. So, if anyone knows how we can achieve this and perhaps some prominent deist thinker can create and maintain a site{someone with enough money obviously; or a set of people perhaps} and hopefully deists who are of influence will make their deism known and promote this movement and philosophy and also this deist "out campaign" idea, for which a symbol will be needed; Atheists use that stylized red 'A", perhaps Deists could sue a stylized Red{or some other colour?} "D", or maybe another symbol. In either case someone would have to design it.
Anyways, I just noticed on facebook some atheist friends setting up their red "A" symbol for the next week to promote their out campaign and this idea dawned on me that we too should do something similar.
This would apply to the categories of modern deism; including simply "Deism", as well as types of "PanDeism
& "PanenDeism".
Thoughts, advise, ideas?
The Atheist "Out Campaign" has a symbol and website and a mobilized movement. I would like to see us achieve the same. So, if anyone knows how we can achieve this and perhaps some prominent deist thinker can create and maintain a site{someone with enough money obviously; or a set of people perhaps} and hopefully deists who are of influence will make their deism known and promote this movement and philosophy and also this deist "out campaign" idea, for which a symbol will be needed; Atheists use that stylized red 'A", perhaps Deists could sue a stylized Red{or some other colour?} "D", or maybe another symbol. In either case someone would have to design it.
Anyways, I just noticed on facebook some atheist friends setting up their red "A" symbol for the next week to promote their out campaign and this idea dawned on me that we too should do something similar.
This would apply to the categories of modern deism; including simply "Deism", as well as types of "PanDeism
& "PanenDeism".
Thoughts, advise, ideas?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
News of interest; Metal band member arrested for blasphemy in Poland
Lead vocalist/guitarist Adam Darski{stage name/pseudonymn "Nergal"} of Polish-born international blackened death metal band "Behemoth" has been arrested for blasphemy in Poland for calling catholicism the most murderous cult in history and for tearing up Bibles on stage and for egenerall alla round black/death metal shock value/blasphemy.
Here is a link about it- "Behemoth Frontman Nergal Arrested For Bible Shredding Incident":
http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/03/09/behemoth-frontman-arrested-bible-shredding/
And this just on the heels of his engagement to Polish pop star Doda{real name: Dorota Rabczewska}.
Revealed Religion once again strikes against reason and liberty and seeks special privelage for protection from offense, and ocne again imposes its collective will on everyone else and punishes people for stupid reasons. Revealed Religion rears it's ugly head and chomps down on freedom...what else is new?
My best wishes to Nergal{real name Adam Darski}and hopes that he wins his freedom againmst this theocratic tyranny!
Here is a link about it- "Behemoth Frontman Nergal Arrested For Bible Shredding Incident":
http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/03/09/behemoth-frontman-arrested-bible-shredding/
And this just on the heels of his engagement to Polish pop star Doda{real name: Dorota Rabczewska}.
Revealed Religion once again strikes against reason and liberty and seeks special privelage for protection from offense, and ocne again imposes its collective will on everyone else and punishes people for stupid reasons. Revealed Religion rears it's ugly head and chomps down on freedom...what else is new?
My best wishes to Nergal{real name Adam Darski}and hopes that he wins his freedom againmst this theocratic tyranny!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
"Scientific Pantheism"-contradiction in terms, and a form of PanDeism in actuality.
"Scientific Pantheism". If you've paid attention to the New Atheist movement, and read some of their polemics you will have noticed this view and label plugged and promoted by many of these Atheists. Evolutionary Biologist and Atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" dubs it as "sexed up atheism" and puts many famous Agnostic and Deist thinkers under it's heading, such as Albert Einstein for one example. Just what is "Scientific Pantheism"?
Scientific Pantheism is a new movement of people dubbing themselves Pantheists and using the term God as a metaphor for the mathematically precise logically ordered natural laws that govern the universe. Many of them consider themselves exactly what Dawkins called them- 'sex up atheists". Romantic atheists. And these "Scientific Pantheists" even have webpages masquerading as PanTHEISM.
But are they Atheists? Are they Pantheists{certainly ACTUAL Pantheists would strongly disagree that they are} And does their label make sense? I will argue in this article that Scientific Pantheism is self-contradictory and that in actuality it is a form of Deism{or a sub-type of PanDeism}, not Atheism nor Pantheism.
Let me define a few terms/concepts first:
Theism: Strong 100% certain unquestioning belief, based on faith and personal revelation{which may or may not include institutional dogmatic religions} in a personal gods or gods that is anthropocentric{human centered}, interventionist, and in most cases anthropomorphic{human like/ a person}. It comes in many sub-categories, from simple theism, to monotheism, to polytheism, henotheism, pantheism & panentheism, and so on. It also is plagued by things such as the philosophical so-called problem of evil/suffering as well as usually{not always} by dualistic thinking and false dichotemies{pantheism and panentheism are'nt neccaserily}. Agnostic-Theism cannot logically work since theism by defnition requires that the god or gods be personally revealed and worshipped by faith. To question at all would mean one has not had a personal theistic god or gods revealed to them, and hence they are not a theist at all, there can logically be no degrees of it, because eeither he/she or they have personally reevaled themselves or they have'nt, if they have'nt there is no logic in beeing theistic at all.
Deism: Belief, generally based in reason, that the laws and nature of the universe imply or indicate the existence, or probable existence, of a non-personal, non-interventionist, non-anthropomorphic & non-anthropocentric calculating & creative{ie: "intelligent" if one wishes to use that term} force, one may choose to call "God" for conventions sake. God is not a name or even proper title for it, just a conventional term used, for some deists like a metaphor for the force that goversn the logical, mathematically precise, law-like nature of the cosmos. The first cause, the prime mover, the fine tuner, or even just the summation of the laws and/or the over-arching law that governs the universe{which may have pre-existed our known time/space universe before the big bang, may have pre-existed or even been the so-called "singularity"; or may even be the laws or law themselves/itself- a Natural God or "Natures God". "God" as a non-person metaphor for this logical law-like nature of our universe}. Deism has a few sub-ceategories as it has evolved over time since the term was invented.. From MonoDeism{or simply "Deism"}, to PanDeism and PanenDeism. Deists may logically be Agnostic in degrees, unlike theists, because the God of deism is not eprsonal nor revealed, the belief in it is arrived at or "leaned towards" by reason,logic, and observation of the natural universe and by philosophizing, thus one can logically lean towards some degree of probability that it exists without being certain{unlike with theism}. Thus, given what Theism is, and what deism is, a deist can also be logically Anti-heistic{or opposed theism and revelation and/or revealed religion}. Deists can also be STRONG Deists, making their beleif faith-based[I also often argue that STRONG Atheism is faith-based}- theer is no way one can logically say they know that strongly one way or the other whatever the universe is deistic or atheistic. middle road Agnosticism right between Atheism and Deism is logically the objective de-fault{though atheisst and deists; soft or strong, will hold their view to be their subjective de-fault}. In Deisms, the Deus{or God} is not good nor evil. Good and evil, luight and dark, male/female, and all false binaries or dichotemies or dualisms are mere biased value judgements or aesthetic judgements, not what the universe actually is. Thus God is'nt any or even a combo of these, but beyond such limited biased value/aesthetic judgements. God is not good nor evil, light nor dark, male nor female,etc. God just IS. Thus philosophical problems such as the so-called "problem of evil/suffering" are of no consequence to Deism or the existence of the Deus, given that they are merely tainted by our value judgements and aesthetics judgements as one animal species on one planet{and so on for other creatures/animals that exist or may exists elsewhere}.
It is pertinant to interject here on the fact that though deistic ideas before the arrival of the term and philosophy of "Deism" in the 17-1th century would've fallen under "theisms" umbrella and when it first came about was synonymous with theism or a liberal form of theism. Deism was a radically different vision of the divine from theism from the very get go, and hence over time has evolved and become it's own unique umbrella category of belief with it;s own set of sub-categories. This nature of deism could be seen from the early days in the fact that it's adherents or promoters were often charged by atheists with beeing of the theists camp and by theists of beeing of the atheists camp, as a type of the others. And yet some others in both camps tried to claim deism and deists as part of their own tradition or camp; these issues persist to this day unfortuantely. It is logically neccasery to seperate Deism from both. Yes Deists believe in God, but the deists view of god is radically different from that of the theists, deists and theists agree on one point, that of belief in a Creator or Emantor of some sort{God}. The fundamental distinction between theism and deism is that theism envisions a god or many gods who are persons, personal, and interventionist- all which require either collective and/or individual direct "revelation", and also often anthropomrophism & anthropocentrism; whereas the god envisioned by the deists is the opposite of all the above, non-personal/interventionist and not a "person" and non-anthopomorphic/centric.
In practical actuality Deists have more common points of view or methodology with Atheists and Agnostics. Deism could be said be a marriage or combo of or the child of the uniting of all the most logical aspects of theism, atheism, and agnosticism Yet, it is neither. It is and remains distinctly it's own unique category, as seen by it's history and nature and what others have gleened from it.
Thsi all I mention in order to make it clear that Deism, as I define it, and as I can see the only way of logically dooing so, as it's own unique category, not a form of theism or atheism.
Atheism: belief theer is no god{STRONG Atheism}, or lack of belief in god or gods{SOFT/Agnostic-Atheism}.
Agnosticism= "without knowledge". Agnsostic as a term can be applied to any question, concept ior context. But since the term in usually used by people in connection with the god question and by those defining themselves as Agnostic regarding the question{ie: those right between atheism and deism}, for sake of argument I shall here define it as "uncertainty about god; whether to be atheist or deist; thus picking the right between and saying 'I DON'T KNOW' period, nor do you"{a refusal to take a leaning towards atheism or deism until either ir proven or shown to be MUCH more probable, to be personally convinced in one direction or the other}.
PanTheism: The belief the universe is synonymous with God, but not JUST so, but with beeing a "personal", revelatory god. the universe is a concious personal deity of which we and everythign are part of. PanTheism, beeing a theism requires this "personal" and 'revelation" aspect to be PanTHEISM.
^^^^
Thus "Scientific PanTHEISM" as a term and concept is incoherent and self-contradictory. The question is then, are sci-pans atheists? or something else?
PanDeism/PanenDeism: first one= the belief{to one degree or another} that a individual conciousness pre-existed csomos and essentially annhilated itself{or possibly "emanated"} and became cosmos, a now unconcious natural god of sorts experiencing individual non-existence, all information and all conciosuness in the cosmos now beeing it.
Second one= The belief{to one degree or another} that the Universe is part of a non-personal, non-revealed, non-humanlike/centered "God" but not the whole of it.
^^^^^^^
PANDEISM{and PanenDeism} can also include the belief that the universe simply is synonymous with a non-personal, non-anthropomorphic/centric, non-interventionist Natural God; and the idea that an individual concious/self-aware force pre-existed cosmos is not neccaserily needed for the equation of beeing PanDeism or PanenDeism{or at least PanDeism anyhow}. That God is merely information, that God is the summation of the governing natural laws and/or the over-arching law governing. These laws are percieved to be limited in number, mathematically precise, rational or logical, comprehensible or undertandable by reason and logic{kinda like how the scientific method and enterprise by neccesity is based on the idea that the universe is rationally comprehendable and the laws are thus; if they are not, if they are not logically natured/ordered and comphrenensible than of what "objective" use/reality is the scientific enterprise/method?}, and also that even these laws likely are governed by some over-arching law as yet not understood; even in the case of the big bang, we only know what was only milliseconds afer the fact, the exact moment of it or the "before"{if I may use that term, as time came into existence with space; at least time as WE know/undertand in OUR universe- the only one we do know of thus far} we don't know anything beyond that. What sparked it? What was the singularity exactly? Did our unvierse come from quantum vaccum? Did it bubble off of a multiverse? Did it always exist but simply happen to be going through an infinite series of expasions and retractions/oscillations? No matter what theory wins out in the end{if any} it is logic to presume that the vaccum, the multiverse, the oscillating one universe, whatever, is eternally governed by some set of laws or by an over-arching law.
Thus, the existence of natural laws and governing law is logically probable as an inherent part of all that exists, and those laws if given time can be logically comphrehended and understood by rational, sentient, evolved creatures{if they ahppen to exist; if they did'nt, the laws themselves would still exist and wouylsd still be of a certain order and law-like nature}. PanDeism/PanenDeism are not "creationist", but at the very most "Ematationism", our universe emanated from something, be it a quantuum vacum, multiverse, itself oscillating/expanding and contracting or remolding/shaping itself,etc.
So, the universe is governed by these mathematically precise, logical, comprehensible forces that are law-like, or by laws, and likely be some over-arching law. Because these laws seemingly are of such nature and are seemingly creative and calculating...we could combine those two concepts as "intelligence". "Intelligence" does not mean "human-like"or "human centered" anymore than suggesting that computers, supercomputers, A.I., non-human animals, units of information, etc, are in some sense "intelligence".
These are points that the so-called "scientific pantheism" would tend to agree on, hence why they are so awe-struck as to use metaphors like "god",etc. But if they are atheists, they would simply just accept the intricate law-like nature of the unvierse as awe-striking but not use that metahpor, they'd just be atheists. I suspect some are simply atheists. Why use that metaphor if the universe is NOT logically/rationally mathematically precisely ordered by said laws & logically comprehensible? If it's just absurd, than why use these metaphors?
So, if so-called "Scientific Pantheists" are bsing their label and their views on these very facts of non-personal, non-anthropomorphic/centric, non-inteventionist, creative and calculating forces or natural laws that are yet rationally/logically, mathematically precise, comprehensible natural laws, and are so awe-struck by these laws and/or the theorized over-arching law governing them. they are actually Deists, to be precise a form of PanDeists/PanDeism. Because Scientific Pantheists rational views and romanticism are identical to that of many PanDeists/PanenDeists. PanDeism and PanenDeism are not contratctory to themsleves{nor evidence and logic}, whereas Scientific PanTHEISM is self-contradictory as a term.
In conclusion, it is my contention that Scientific Pantheists are a form of PanDeist{or possibly PanenDeist}, but they are NOT "PanTHEISTs" at all. Some may be Atheists, and should probably just be consistent and call themselves that, even to use the term "God" as a metaphor for the laws of the universe disqualifies one from beeing "Atheist".
So Scientific Pantheists, I invite you to be what you are and to choose a label for your views that is more self-consistent, such as PanDeism.
; )
Scientific Pantheism is a new movement of people dubbing themselves Pantheists and using the term God as a metaphor for the mathematically precise logically ordered natural laws that govern the universe. Many of them consider themselves exactly what Dawkins called them- 'sex up atheists". Romantic atheists. And these "Scientific Pantheists" even have webpages masquerading as PanTHEISM.
But are they Atheists? Are they Pantheists{certainly ACTUAL Pantheists would strongly disagree that they are} And does their label make sense? I will argue in this article that Scientific Pantheism is self-contradictory and that in actuality it is a form of Deism{or a sub-type of PanDeism}, not Atheism nor Pantheism.
Let me define a few terms/concepts first:
Theism: Strong 100% certain unquestioning belief, based on faith and personal revelation{which may or may not include institutional dogmatic religions} in a personal gods or gods that is anthropocentric{human centered}, interventionist, and in most cases anthropomorphic{human like/ a person}. It comes in many sub-categories, from simple theism, to monotheism, to polytheism, henotheism, pantheism & panentheism, and so on. It also is plagued by things such as the philosophical so-called problem of evil/suffering as well as usually{not always} by dualistic thinking and false dichotemies{pantheism and panentheism are'nt neccaserily}. Agnostic-Theism cannot logically work since theism by defnition requires that the god or gods be personally revealed and worshipped by faith. To question at all would mean one has not had a personal theistic god or gods revealed to them, and hence they are not a theist at all, there can logically be no degrees of it, because eeither he/she or they have personally reevaled themselves or they have'nt, if they have'nt there is no logic in beeing theistic at all.
Deism: Belief, generally based in reason, that the laws and nature of the universe imply or indicate the existence, or probable existence, of a non-personal, non-interventionist, non-anthropomorphic & non-anthropocentric calculating & creative{ie: "intelligent" if one wishes to use that term} force, one may choose to call "God" for conventions sake. God is not a name or even proper title for it, just a conventional term used, for some deists like a metaphor for the force that goversn the logical, mathematically precise, law-like nature of the cosmos. The first cause, the prime mover, the fine tuner, or even just the summation of the laws and/or the over-arching law that governs the universe{which may have pre-existed our known time/space universe before the big bang, may have pre-existed or even been the so-called "singularity"; or may even be the laws or law themselves/itself- a Natural God or "Natures God". "God" as a non-person metaphor for this logical law-like nature of our universe}. Deism has a few sub-ceategories as it has evolved over time since the term was invented.. From MonoDeism{or simply "Deism"}, to PanDeism and PanenDeism. Deists may logically be Agnostic in degrees, unlike theists, because the God of deism is not eprsonal nor revealed, the belief in it is arrived at or "leaned towards" by reason,logic, and observation of the natural universe and by philosophizing, thus one can logically lean towards some degree of probability that it exists without being certain{unlike with theism}. Thus, given what Theism is, and what deism is, a deist can also be logically Anti-heistic{or opposed theism and revelation and/or revealed religion}. Deists can also be STRONG Deists, making their beleif faith-based[I also often argue that STRONG Atheism is faith-based}- theer is no way one can logically say they know that strongly one way or the other whatever the universe is deistic or atheistic. middle road Agnosticism right between Atheism and Deism is logically the objective de-fault{though atheisst and deists; soft or strong, will hold their view to be their subjective de-fault}. In Deisms, the Deus{or God} is not good nor evil. Good and evil, luight and dark, male/female, and all false binaries or dichotemies or dualisms are mere biased value judgements or aesthetic judgements, not what the universe actually is. Thus God is'nt any or even a combo of these, but beyond such limited biased value/aesthetic judgements. God is not good nor evil, light nor dark, male nor female,etc. God just IS. Thus philosophical problems such as the so-called "problem of evil/suffering" are of no consequence to Deism or the existence of the Deus, given that they are merely tainted by our value judgements and aesthetics judgements as one animal species on one planet{and so on for other creatures/animals that exist or may exists elsewhere}.
It is pertinant to interject here on the fact that though deistic ideas before the arrival of the term and philosophy of "Deism" in the 17-1th century would've fallen under "theisms" umbrella and when it first came about was synonymous with theism or a liberal form of theism. Deism was a radically different vision of the divine from theism from the very get go, and hence over time has evolved and become it's own unique umbrella category of belief with it;s own set of sub-categories. This nature of deism could be seen from the early days in the fact that it's adherents or promoters were often charged by atheists with beeing of the theists camp and by theists of beeing of the atheists camp, as a type of the others. And yet some others in both camps tried to claim deism and deists as part of their own tradition or camp; these issues persist to this day unfortuantely. It is logically neccasery to seperate Deism from both. Yes Deists believe in God, but the deists view of god is radically different from that of the theists, deists and theists agree on one point, that of belief in a Creator or Emantor of some sort{God}. The fundamental distinction between theism and deism is that theism envisions a god or many gods who are persons, personal, and interventionist- all which require either collective and/or individual direct "revelation", and also often anthropomrophism & anthropocentrism; whereas the god envisioned by the deists is the opposite of all the above, non-personal/interventionist and not a "person" and non-anthopomorphic/centric.
In practical actuality Deists have more common points of view or methodology with Atheists and Agnostics. Deism could be said be a marriage or combo of or the child of the uniting of all the most logical aspects of theism, atheism, and agnosticism Yet, it is neither. It is and remains distinctly it's own unique category, as seen by it's history and nature and what others have gleened from it.
Thsi all I mention in order to make it clear that Deism, as I define it, and as I can see the only way of logically dooing so, as it's own unique category, not a form of theism or atheism.
Atheism: belief theer is no god{STRONG Atheism}, or lack of belief in god or gods{SOFT/Agnostic-Atheism}.
Agnosticism= "without knowledge". Agnsostic as a term can be applied to any question, concept ior context. But since the term in usually used by people in connection with the god question and by those defining themselves as Agnostic regarding the question{ie: those right between atheism and deism}, for sake of argument I shall here define it as "uncertainty about god; whether to be atheist or deist; thus picking the right between and saying 'I DON'T KNOW' period, nor do you"{a refusal to take a leaning towards atheism or deism until either ir proven or shown to be MUCH more probable, to be personally convinced in one direction or the other}.
PanTheism: The belief the universe is synonymous with God, but not JUST so, but with beeing a "personal", revelatory god. the universe is a concious personal deity of which we and everythign are part of. PanTheism, beeing a theism requires this "personal" and 'revelation" aspect to be PanTHEISM.
^^^^
Thus "Scientific PanTHEISM" as a term and concept is incoherent and self-contradictory. The question is then, are sci-pans atheists? or something else?
PanDeism/PanenDeism: first one= the belief{to one degree or another} that a individual conciousness pre-existed csomos and essentially annhilated itself{or possibly "emanated"} and became cosmos, a now unconcious natural god of sorts experiencing individual non-existence, all information and all conciosuness in the cosmos now beeing it.
Second one= The belief{to one degree or another} that the Universe is part of a non-personal, non-revealed, non-humanlike/centered "God" but not the whole of it.
^^^^^^^
PANDEISM{and PanenDeism} can also include the belief that the universe simply is synonymous with a non-personal, non-anthropomorphic/centric, non-interventionist Natural God; and the idea that an individual concious/self-aware force pre-existed cosmos is not neccaserily needed for the equation of beeing PanDeism or PanenDeism{or at least PanDeism anyhow}. That God is merely information, that God is the summation of the governing natural laws and/or the over-arching law governing. These laws are percieved to be limited in number, mathematically precise, rational or logical, comprehensible or undertandable by reason and logic{kinda like how the scientific method and enterprise by neccesity is based on the idea that the universe is rationally comprehendable and the laws are thus; if they are not, if they are not logically natured/ordered and comphrenensible than of what "objective" use/reality is the scientific enterprise/method?}, and also that even these laws likely are governed by some over-arching law as yet not understood; even in the case of the big bang, we only know what was only milliseconds afer the fact, the exact moment of it or the "before"{if I may use that term, as time came into existence with space; at least time as WE know/undertand in OUR universe- the only one we do know of thus far} we don't know anything beyond that. What sparked it? What was the singularity exactly? Did our unvierse come from quantum vaccum? Did it bubble off of a multiverse? Did it always exist but simply happen to be going through an infinite series of expasions and retractions/oscillations? No matter what theory wins out in the end{if any} it is logic to presume that the vaccum, the multiverse, the oscillating one universe, whatever, is eternally governed by some set of laws or by an over-arching law.
Thus, the existence of natural laws and governing law is logically probable as an inherent part of all that exists, and those laws if given time can be logically comphrehended and understood by rational, sentient, evolved creatures{if they ahppen to exist; if they did'nt, the laws themselves would still exist and wouylsd still be of a certain order and law-like nature}. PanDeism/PanenDeism are not "creationist", but at the very most "Ematationism", our universe emanated from something, be it a quantuum vacum, multiverse, itself oscillating/expanding and contracting or remolding/shaping itself,etc.
So, the universe is governed by these mathematically precise, logical, comprehensible forces that are law-like, or by laws, and likely be some over-arching law. Because these laws seemingly are of such nature and are seemingly creative and calculating...we could combine those two concepts as "intelligence". "Intelligence" does not mean "human-like"or "human centered" anymore than suggesting that computers, supercomputers, A.I., non-human animals, units of information, etc, are in some sense "intelligence".
These are points that the so-called "scientific pantheism" would tend to agree on, hence why they are so awe-struck as to use metaphors like "god",etc. But if they are atheists, they would simply just accept the intricate law-like nature of the unvierse as awe-striking but not use that metahpor, they'd just be atheists. I suspect some are simply atheists. Why use that metaphor if the universe is NOT logically/rationally mathematically precisely ordered by said laws & logically comprehensible? If it's just absurd, than why use these metaphors?
So, if so-called "Scientific Pantheists" are bsing their label and their views on these very facts of non-personal, non-anthropomorphic/centric, non-inteventionist, creative and calculating forces or natural laws that are yet rationally/logically, mathematically precise, comprehensible natural laws, and are so awe-struck by these laws and/or the theorized over-arching law governing them. they are actually Deists, to be precise a form of PanDeists/PanDeism. Because Scientific Pantheists rational views and romanticism are identical to that of many PanDeists/PanenDeists. PanDeism and PanenDeism are not contratctory to themsleves{nor evidence and logic}, whereas Scientific PanTHEISM is self-contradictory as a term.
In conclusion, it is my contention that Scientific Pantheists are a form of PanDeist{or possibly PanenDeist}, but they are NOT "PanTHEISTs" at all. Some may be Atheists, and should probably just be consistent and call themselves that, even to use the term "God" as a metaphor for the laws of the universe disqualifies one from beeing "Atheist".
So Scientific Pantheists, I invite you to be what you are and to choose a label for your views that is more self-consistent, such as PanDeism.
; )
Monday, December 21, 2009
Argument for Gods existence.
This was originally submitted for my "critical thinking" course in university last week.
ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE:
-Premise one:
*The Universe exists and natural laws exist.
-Premise two:
*There exists a limited(so far as know) set of rational/logical, comprehensible, mathematically precise, discoverable natural laws that govern the universe.
-Premise three
* Two of the natural laws is the development into existence of life, or the raw ingredients to combine and bring about the existence of simple life{ie: abiogenesis}. Along with the natural law of evolution of life(including adaptation or survival of the fittest).
-Premise four
*Had the cosmological constants or any of the natural laws been different by even the slighest percentile at the onset of or shortly after the singularity expanded and the first symmetries were broken{ie: cosmogenesis} after the big bang, the universe would likely be a drastically different place, and no life of any sort would exist in it nor have been able to exist or evolve.
-Premise five
*All laws are governed by other interconnected and over-arching laws.
-Premise six
*(Hence) there must be an overarching rational/logical, comprehensable, mathematically precise, discoverable law that governs all natural laws.
-Premise seven
*In our experience such rationality/logic, precise, ordered, comprehensible laws generally are made or governed by or tweaked by a governing, calculating agency or intelligence of some sorts.
-Conclusion:
* Therefore, there is "probably"{not "certainly"} a force, likely{not certainly} intelligent or calculating in some sense, behind the creation or emanation of or self contained within the universe and it's laws.
{creation/emenation or self-containement and/or oscillation really depends on which cosmological theory of cosmogenesis turns out to be true}
This force (of set of forces, perhaps) one could logically choose to call anything, but which most, by convention/tradition label/term as 'God"{other terms which apply to this same creative and/or intelligent principle or force could also be used}. Therefore, God{Deus; not Theos} "probably"(again, not 'certainly'} exists.
Note:
Whether this law/force/God exists outside of our universes space/time or even all possible universes{multiverse} and apart from such and it created or emanated the universe(s) and/or whether it became the universe(s), and/or is itself self-contained within one oscillating big bang/big crunch eternal universe and is the over-arching law or sum of all the laws(all really depends on which cosmological theory/argument of cosmogenesis or on the origins of this universe turns out to be true/factual}.
This premise to conclusion argument is only designed to argue the "probablity{not certainty} of an intelligent or creative force(or God) that is either the sum of, part of, or behind all the rational/logical, comprehensible, precise, limited set of discoverable natural laws.
It is or would then be purely Deistic, not Theistic.
P.S. as one last addition to this. I originally designed this argument as a hand in assignment for my "Critical Thinking" class in University. It also contained a diagram which I can't do here. Anyways, my professor gave me a 3.5 out of 5 on it, I suspect the missing 1.5 was due to my not being able to completely correctly answer two unrelated questions{unrelated to this argument for god} in the assignment, as well as he challenged my first premise based on an argument related to the uncertainty of the nature of the quantum reality.
He{my prof) asked{in challenge to premise one}:
"Have we arrived at a unified theory of these laws? Or are the laws of nature at the quantum level of reality as yet elusive?
I have yet to answer him. However, I included it here to answer it thusly:
* True, we have not YET arrived at a unified theory. We still do not quite understand the as of yet elusive nature of laws at the quantum level of reality. However, this is one of the reasons why I myself am not a STRONG Deist, but an Agnostic-Deist. I might suggest this however, that thus far even the macro level of reality is not yet "fully' known or understood, my argument is designed aorund what we so far know about the universe at the macro level. If the macro level is so far as we can tell of such a rational/logical, comprehensible, mathematically precise, discoverable nature, and it has been our experience in times past that we and our scientists did not yet understand laws and things about the universes we now do, and that time has born out that for the most part all that we've discovered is a universe that operates according to such principles, it stands to reason that there's a good chance or a degree of probaility that the quantum level of reality does as well, perhaps by it's own set of laws, but laws which nonetheless will likely turn out to be logical/rational, comprehensible, and precise and which in some way connect to the laws that govern the macro world; we just have yet to fully understand them and the micro/quantum level, but so far our experience has born out the rational/logical, mathematical nature of the universe that we were less certain of in times past. We may discover that the quantum reality is indeed truly absurd and not logical even in the slighest, but given experience a reasonable presumption is the probabiltiy that it is indeed rational/logical and we have just yet to discover and fully understand all those logical laws of the quantum part of reality.
ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE:
-Premise one:
*The Universe exists and natural laws exist.
-Premise two:
*There exists a limited(so far as know) set of rational/logical, comprehensible, mathematically precise, discoverable natural laws that govern the universe.
-Premise three
* Two of the natural laws is the development into existence of life, or the raw ingredients to combine and bring about the existence of simple life{ie: abiogenesis}. Along with the natural law of evolution of life(including adaptation or survival of the fittest).
-Premise four
*Had the cosmological constants or any of the natural laws been different by even the slighest percentile at the onset of or shortly after the singularity expanded and the first symmetries were broken{ie: cosmogenesis} after the big bang, the universe would likely be a drastically different place, and no life of any sort would exist in it nor have been able to exist or evolve.
-Premise five
*All laws are governed by other interconnected and over-arching laws.
-Premise six
*(Hence) there must be an overarching rational/logical, comprehensable, mathematically precise, discoverable law that governs all natural laws.
-Premise seven
*In our experience such rationality/logic, precise, ordered, comprehensible laws generally are made or governed by or tweaked by a governing, calculating agency or intelligence of some sorts.
-Conclusion:
* Therefore, there is "probably"{not "certainly"} a force, likely{not certainly} intelligent or calculating in some sense, behind the creation or emanation of or self contained within the universe and it's laws.
{creation/emenation or self-containement and/or oscillation really depends on which cosmological theory of cosmogenesis turns out to be true}
This force (of set of forces, perhaps) one could logically choose to call anything, but which most, by convention/tradition label/term as 'God"{other terms which apply to this same creative and/or intelligent principle or force could also be used}. Therefore, God{Deus; not Theos} "probably"(again, not 'certainly'} exists.
Note:
Whether this law/force/God exists outside of our universes space/time or even all possible universes{multiverse} and apart from such and it created or emanated the universe(s) and/or whether it became the universe(s), and/or is itself self-contained within one oscillating big bang/big crunch eternal universe and is the over-arching law or sum of all the laws(all really depends on which cosmological theory/argument of cosmogenesis or on the origins of this universe turns out to be true/factual}.
This premise to conclusion argument is only designed to argue the "probablity{not certainty} of an intelligent or creative force(or God) that is either the sum of, part of, or behind all the rational/logical, comprehensible, precise, limited set of discoverable natural laws.
It is or would then be purely Deistic, not Theistic.
P.S. as one last addition to this. I originally designed this argument as a hand in assignment for my "Critical Thinking" class in University. It also contained a diagram which I can't do here. Anyways, my professor gave me a 3.5 out of 5 on it, I suspect the missing 1.5 was due to my not being able to completely correctly answer two unrelated questions{unrelated to this argument for god} in the assignment, as well as he challenged my first premise based on an argument related to the uncertainty of the nature of the quantum reality.
He{my prof) asked{in challenge to premise one}:
"Have we arrived at a unified theory of these laws? Or are the laws of nature at the quantum level of reality as yet elusive?
I have yet to answer him. However, I included it here to answer it thusly:
* True, we have not YET arrived at a unified theory. We still do not quite understand the as of yet elusive nature of laws at the quantum level of reality. However, this is one of the reasons why I myself am not a STRONG Deist, but an Agnostic-Deist. I might suggest this however, that thus far even the macro level of reality is not yet "fully' known or understood, my argument is designed aorund what we so far know about the universe at the macro level. If the macro level is so far as we can tell of such a rational/logical, comprehensible, mathematically precise, discoverable nature, and it has been our experience in times past that we and our scientists did not yet understand laws and things about the universes we now do, and that time has born out that for the most part all that we've discovered is a universe that operates according to such principles, it stands to reason that there's a good chance or a degree of probaility that the quantum level of reality does as well, perhaps by it's own set of laws, but laws which nonetheless will likely turn out to be logical/rational, comprehensible, and precise and which in some way connect to the laws that govern the macro world; we just have yet to fully understand them and the micro/quantum level, but so far our experience has born out the rational/logical, mathematical nature of the universe that we were less certain of in times past. We may discover that the quantum reality is indeed truly absurd and not logical even in the slighest, but given experience a reasonable presumption is the probabiltiy that it is indeed rational/logical and we have just yet to discover and fully understand all those logical laws of the quantum part of reality.
That is my theory. I could, however be wrong.
Anyways, that is my argument for god.
I also would like to take this opportunity to reccomend anything by Physicist/Cosmologist/Astrobiologist and effectively agnostic-(pan)deist Paul Davies. Such as his books "The Mind of God: the scientific case for a rational world" and "God and the new physics"
Briefly Introducing the Duelling Deist
Greetings.
My name is Bill Baker(Aka: The Duelling Deist).
I am a 31 year old Deist from Canada. I have set up this blog to promote well, what the description says. Part of my agenda is to also challenge both theism and atheism. While I believe that atheism is far more logical than theism, I believe many atheists are dogmatic and I also obviously personally believe the existence of a deistic force{which most call 'God", but which you may call whatever term you like that fits what a deistic force is} is more likely than that it does'nt. I also believe that "Strong" Atheism is faith-based, as is "Strong" Deism. I argue that Agnosticism right between Atheism and Deism is the logical or rational default. I, however lean towards Deism myself, and I therefore hold that Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Deism(of various degrees; and by the way with Agnostic-Deism this also includes Agnostic-PanDeism/PanenDeism) are reasonable or rational belief "leanings". Yes I argue that Atheism is a belief, not a lack thereof, I say that the Agnosticism of which I speak is a "lack of belief"( I am aware that it means "without knowledge"}. I will shortly say this, Atheism comes from the greek 'atheos" which means "without the gods/godless", not 'without belief in..." or "believe there is no". The traditional defnition could include both agnostics and deists, and even lapsed theists. Atheism has been wittled down and redefined, and that is good, however Agnostics have basically redefined agnsoticism to be of the sort I mentioned, and Deists have been redefining their view as seperate from theism{which it originally was a companion of, but it has become all it's own, many deists today are much more like atheists and agnostics than theists}. Atheists can redefine Atheism, Agnostics and Deists can redefine our terms and philosophies. All these redefintions however puts agnosticism in the de-fault psoition and atheism as a belief leaning{leaning towards the belief that no gods exist}. I have more refined arguments for this position, but I do not wish to drag this out too long here.
Let me more clearly define my terms here.
I define 'faith" as "100% unquestioning complete and absolute belief in or trust in a proposition, idea, person, or thing with a strong lack of evidence and logical/rational argument for such or even in defiance of mountains of evidence and logical/rational argument". Faith by this definition, which is how "faith" usually operates and is defined by most through the world{and by the way, it exists outside the so-called religious paradigm as well as in and I think a case can be made that not all religions demand or require faith and that religion itself does'nt necasserily}does not and cannot have degrees or percentages. It is absolute by definition & tradition. I define
"belief" as an intellectual and/or emotional leaning towards a given proposition or idea, but one which is not absolute or unquestioning, just as I said- a 'leaning", and it has degrees and percentages; 100% belief is faith if it is in that which lacks alot of evidence and rational/logical argument and blatantly contradicts mountains of the same.
I might also note that I define "faith" and "trust" differently. Many say "well you must have faith in your loved ones or yourself or thyat the ground will not give way beneath you,etc". I can only speak for myself here, but I have no "faith" in any of the above. I have degrees of "trust". I think that we have more appropriate terms for the things we often use the term 'faith" in. Even when it comes to sexual/romantic so-called "faithfullness" or "Unfaithfullness". Why not just use the terms 'trust" and "fidelity/infidelity"? Faith is such a strong word that, lets face it, is used in specific contexts more often than not that refer to ideas,propositions, and concepts- most often in referance to religious faiths{though not exclusively}. By my definitions above, the phrase "blind faith" is redundant.
I define Atheism as the leaning towards the belief that ther are no gods, deism is the leaning toward the belief there is a non-personal or transpersonal creative/calculating{intelligent}force of some otherwise unknown and undefined sorts, variously called a fine tuner and/or prime mover and/or first cause and/or the sum of all the laws of the cosmos and/or the overarching law, Theism is the belief in personal{usually, though not always, anthropomorphized & anthropocentrized and/or animal-like}god or gods
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Deism are just categories, as for that matter is Theism. Being Atheist or Deist or Agnostic does not neccaserily mean one os a rationalist, materialist, empiricist, skeptic, non-religious, without faith, non-spiritual, not supersititious,etc. Some religions are even Atheistic or Deistic. And some religions don't necaserily include faith, superstition, dogmaticism, hierarchacal authority, belief in personal gods or any gods,etc. These terms are usually employed as a persons view on the god question and does not neccaserily imply anything more. Yes, most self-desceribed Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists are of the more rationalist and non-religious sorts{don't mistake rationalism for non-religion and visa versa}, but the terms don't neccaserily mean such or preclude all these things. i myself am more of the rationalist sorts, but I am open-minded somewhat towards so-called spirituality,etc.
I touched on "religion" above. I define "religion" as an ideology that may or may not include faith, belief in god or gods{personal or non-personal}, superstitions, dogmas,etc. There are so many things we call 'religion" in this world, and many of these have little in common, some belief in personal gods[some not personal}, some believe in magic or miraces or superstition and some don't, some are theistic and "revealed religions" and some are'nt. Some are rational, some mystical, some philosophical, some merely symbolic. The term religion comes from the latin "religio"(meaning "to bind over/together"}. Now obviously this term could therefore apply to basically any grouping or movement ot culture or subculture or ideology. So it is logical to narrow it down a bit. Looking at the different kinds of religions that exist, what are the common elements to all? Well, my readers may feel free to challenge me on this, but I think it really can be narrowed down to:
{1} a group of people{organized or not so organized} that share common beliefs and/or values and/or preferances and/or a set of basic principles or doctrines. {2}Symbolism, and {3}ritual(which may or may not be required). That's it. The religion may or may not be inherently dogmatic about these 3 things, it really depends, some are and some are'nt. Thus, my personal beef is not with religion in and of itself, nor all religions. Though I do think most religions have done harm or are capable of it, I don't think this is neccaserily true of ALL of them. Though I also believe all should be open to challenge,question, criticism, and having to explain themselves; but I also believe the same for Atheism{strong or weak/agnostic} and Deism{strong or weak/agnostic. My main beef is with the so-called "revealed religions"{especially the 3 Abrahamic ones}, "faith" in and of itself{religious or otherwise}, and ones with ideas that defy any kind of logical argument for existence or usage{so a symbolic religion may explain psychological usages for ritual or symbolism for example, I think those are logical arguments, because emotion and psychology are part of what the human animal is, it really comes down to choice however}. Of those religions I do oppose or critisize, I do so to different degrees or for different reasons depending on the religion at issue.
In short, I do not buy the common atheism vs religion{visa versa}dualism, nor the simplistic views most of either side have. My views and arguments are more nuanced and I make more important distinctions than most of those fighting the culture war. For me however if it could be narrowed down, I think it could be narrowed down to reason vs. faith. But 'reason' does not mean simply atheism and "classic" materialism or cold hard borg like logic{though certainly logic plays a part in my views, just that I see logic as also encompassing the logical natural fact that we are a social species and have emotions}, I see "reason" as meaning what it meant to the thinkers of the enlightenment, and it encompasses ALL enlightenment values and ideas, it more about balance or finding what ancient greek philosopher Aristotle called "the golden mean".
I also touched on "skeptic". I define "skeptic" as beeing cautiously open-minded and ratioanlly questioning; it's not neccaserily the same thing as closed-minded cynicism . "Radical" Skepticism{or absolutist debunkers} is not a logical or rational viewpoint, at least not when in referance to things which are as of yet not proven nor disproven and for which things really are up in the air; nothing is certain either way, but some things are so incredibly improbable that they are very, very close to impossible, there are many things that so-called skeptic debunkers toss into one basket when some of those things do not deserve quite the same ridicule as other things. If something is logically plausable, but just can't yet be proven or disproven, then we should approach the idea ot concetp with a cautious open mind.
A brief history of me.
As I said before I am a 31 year old Deist. To get very accurate about my beliefs, I am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist{tending towards PanDeism and/or PanenDeism; undecided, to me it really dfepends on which cosmological scheme turns out to be the right one or what existed prior to this particular big bang, if anything- ie: eternal singularity till then, oscillating universe, multiverse, etc}. However I was'nt always such. I was born into a Christian home, and was raised such. I always believed what I was told, and when I was around 16-17 I became a willing born againer evangelical/fundamentlaist non-denominational though protestant{pentecostally inclined} Christian. I was devoutly so for allmost a decade. When I was in my early 20's I started questuining and challenging certain dogmas and doctrines. When I was about 24 I became a little more of a liberally inclined christian, and when I was 25 I apostasized from the faith{this was January of 2004}, from theism in general, and from faith in general, as well as from revealed religion in general, and habve never gone back since and never will. I have been a Deist since, except for a brief stint as an Agnostic-Atheist for about 5 months in 2007.
I am a proud contrarian freethinker. I am a devoted metalhead. My socio-political values are nuanced, as a realist I am a "Left Libertarian" in general, as an idealist I am a "Libertarian Socialist" or "Social Anarchist" and what I call a "Panocrat"{which essentially means "direct democracy"}.
I may end up sharing more about myself and my values or views in upcoming articles. but For now, I think this introduction should suffice.
So let the games begin.
: )
In Reason:
The Duelling Deist
(Bill Baker)
My name is Bill Baker(Aka: The Duelling Deist).
I am a 31 year old Deist from Canada. I have set up this blog to promote well, what the description says. Part of my agenda is to also challenge both theism and atheism. While I believe that atheism is far more logical than theism, I believe many atheists are dogmatic and I also obviously personally believe the existence of a deistic force{which most call 'God", but which you may call whatever term you like that fits what a deistic force is} is more likely than that it does'nt. I also believe that "Strong" Atheism is faith-based, as is "Strong" Deism. I argue that Agnosticism right between Atheism and Deism is the logical or rational default. I, however lean towards Deism myself, and I therefore hold that Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Deism(of various degrees; and by the way with Agnostic-Deism this also includes Agnostic-PanDeism/PanenDeism) are reasonable or rational belief "leanings". Yes I argue that Atheism is a belief, not a lack thereof, I say that the Agnosticism of which I speak is a "lack of belief"( I am aware that it means "without knowledge"}. I will shortly say this, Atheism comes from the greek 'atheos" which means "without the gods/godless", not 'without belief in..." or "believe there is no". The traditional defnition could include both agnostics and deists, and even lapsed theists. Atheism has been wittled down and redefined, and that is good, however Agnostics have basically redefined agnsoticism to be of the sort I mentioned, and Deists have been redefining their view as seperate from theism{which it originally was a companion of, but it has become all it's own, many deists today are much more like atheists and agnostics than theists}. Atheists can redefine Atheism, Agnostics and Deists can redefine our terms and philosophies. All these redefintions however puts agnosticism in the de-fault psoition and atheism as a belief leaning{leaning towards the belief that no gods exist}. I have more refined arguments for this position, but I do not wish to drag this out too long here.
Let me more clearly define my terms here.
I define 'faith" as "100% unquestioning complete and absolute belief in or trust in a proposition, idea, person, or thing with a strong lack of evidence and logical/rational argument for such or even in defiance of mountains of evidence and logical/rational argument". Faith by this definition, which is how "faith" usually operates and is defined by most through the world{and by the way, it exists outside the so-called religious paradigm as well as in and I think a case can be made that not all religions demand or require faith and that religion itself does'nt necasserily}does not and cannot have degrees or percentages. It is absolute by definition & tradition. I define
"belief" as an intellectual and/or emotional leaning towards a given proposition or idea, but one which is not absolute or unquestioning, just as I said- a 'leaning", and it has degrees and percentages; 100% belief is faith if it is in that which lacks alot of evidence and rational/logical argument and blatantly contradicts mountains of the same.
I might also note that I define "faith" and "trust" differently. Many say "well you must have faith in your loved ones or yourself or thyat the ground will not give way beneath you,etc". I can only speak for myself here, but I have no "faith" in any of the above. I have degrees of "trust". I think that we have more appropriate terms for the things we often use the term 'faith" in. Even when it comes to sexual/romantic so-called "faithfullness" or "Unfaithfullness". Why not just use the terms 'trust" and "fidelity/infidelity"? Faith is such a strong word that, lets face it, is used in specific contexts more often than not that refer to ideas,propositions, and concepts- most often in referance to religious faiths{though not exclusively}. By my definitions above, the phrase "blind faith" is redundant.
I define Atheism as the leaning towards the belief that ther are no gods, deism is the leaning toward the belief there is a non-personal or transpersonal creative/calculating{intelligent}force of some otherwise unknown and undefined sorts, variously called a fine tuner and/or prime mover and/or first cause and/or the sum of all the laws of the cosmos and/or the overarching law, Theism is the belief in personal{usually, though not always, anthropomorphized & anthropocentrized and/or animal-like}god or gods
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Deism are just categories, as for that matter is Theism. Being Atheist or Deist or Agnostic does not neccaserily mean one os a rationalist, materialist, empiricist, skeptic, non-religious, without faith, non-spiritual, not supersititious,etc. Some religions are even Atheistic or Deistic. And some religions don't necaserily include faith, superstition, dogmaticism, hierarchacal authority, belief in personal gods or any gods,etc. These terms are usually employed as a persons view on the god question and does not neccaserily imply anything more. Yes, most self-desceribed Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists are of the more rationalist and non-religious sorts{don't mistake rationalism for non-religion and visa versa}, but the terms don't neccaserily mean such or preclude all these things. i myself am more of the rationalist sorts, but I am open-minded somewhat towards so-called spirituality,etc.
I touched on "religion" above. I define "religion" as an ideology that may or may not include faith, belief in god or gods{personal or non-personal}, superstitions, dogmas,etc. There are so many things we call 'religion" in this world, and many of these have little in common, some belief in personal gods[some not personal}, some believe in magic or miraces or superstition and some don't, some are theistic and "revealed religions" and some are'nt. Some are rational, some mystical, some philosophical, some merely symbolic. The term religion comes from the latin "religio"(meaning "to bind over/together"}. Now obviously this term could therefore apply to basically any grouping or movement ot culture or subculture or ideology. So it is logical to narrow it down a bit. Looking at the different kinds of religions that exist, what are the common elements to all? Well, my readers may feel free to challenge me on this, but I think it really can be narrowed down to:
{1} a group of people{organized or not so organized} that share common beliefs and/or values and/or preferances and/or a set of basic principles or doctrines. {2}Symbolism, and {3}ritual(which may or may not be required). That's it. The religion may or may not be inherently dogmatic about these 3 things, it really depends, some are and some are'nt. Thus, my personal beef is not with religion in and of itself, nor all religions. Though I do think most religions have done harm or are capable of it, I don't think this is neccaserily true of ALL of them. Though I also believe all should be open to challenge,question, criticism, and having to explain themselves; but I also believe the same for Atheism{strong or weak/agnostic} and Deism{strong or weak/agnostic. My main beef is with the so-called "revealed religions"{especially the 3 Abrahamic ones}, "faith" in and of itself{religious or otherwise}, and ones with ideas that defy any kind of logical argument for existence or usage{so a symbolic religion may explain psychological usages for ritual or symbolism for example, I think those are logical arguments, because emotion and psychology are part of what the human animal is, it really comes down to choice however}. Of those religions I do oppose or critisize, I do so to different degrees or for different reasons depending on the religion at issue.
In short, I do not buy the common atheism vs religion{visa versa}dualism, nor the simplistic views most of either side have. My views and arguments are more nuanced and I make more important distinctions than most of those fighting the culture war. For me however if it could be narrowed down, I think it could be narrowed down to reason vs. faith. But 'reason' does not mean simply atheism and "classic" materialism or cold hard borg like logic{though certainly logic plays a part in my views, just that I see logic as also encompassing the logical natural fact that we are a social species and have emotions}, I see "reason" as meaning what it meant to the thinkers of the enlightenment, and it encompasses ALL enlightenment values and ideas, it more about balance or finding what ancient greek philosopher Aristotle called "the golden mean".
I also touched on "skeptic". I define "skeptic" as beeing cautiously open-minded and ratioanlly questioning; it's not neccaserily the same thing as closed-minded cynicism . "Radical" Skepticism{or absolutist debunkers} is not a logical or rational viewpoint, at least not when in referance to things which are as of yet not proven nor disproven and for which things really are up in the air; nothing is certain either way, but some things are so incredibly improbable that they are very, very close to impossible, there are many things that so-called skeptic debunkers toss into one basket when some of those things do not deserve quite the same ridicule as other things. If something is logically plausable, but just can't yet be proven or disproven, then we should approach the idea ot concetp with a cautious open mind.
A brief history of me.
As I said before I am a 31 year old Deist. To get very accurate about my beliefs, I am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist{tending towards PanDeism and/or PanenDeism; undecided, to me it really dfepends on which cosmological scheme turns out to be the right one or what existed prior to this particular big bang, if anything- ie: eternal singularity till then, oscillating universe, multiverse, etc}. However I was'nt always such. I was born into a Christian home, and was raised such. I always believed what I was told, and when I was around 16-17 I became a willing born againer evangelical/fundamentlaist non-denominational though protestant{pentecostally inclined} Christian. I was devoutly so for allmost a decade. When I was in my early 20's I started questuining and challenging certain dogmas and doctrines. When I was about 24 I became a little more of a liberally inclined christian, and when I was 25 I apostasized from the faith{this was January of 2004}, from theism in general, and from faith in general, as well as from revealed religion in general, and habve never gone back since and never will. I have been a Deist since, except for a brief stint as an Agnostic-Atheist for about 5 months in 2007.
I am a proud contrarian freethinker. I am a devoted metalhead. My socio-political values are nuanced, as a realist I am a "Left Libertarian" in general, as an idealist I am a "Libertarian Socialist" or "Social Anarchist" and what I call a "Panocrat"{which essentially means "direct democracy"}.
I may end up sharing more about myself and my values or views in upcoming articles. but For now, I think this introduction should suffice.
So let the games begin.
: )
In Reason:
The Duelling Deist
(Bill Baker)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)