Are you a universist?

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Causality

Quote:
Deists are not theists... Deists are rationalists.

We aren't strictly discussing the methodology used to form your beliefs. And what you consider to be a rational conclusion is pretty irrational to some people. You have never seen, tasted, felt, heard or sensed in any way a deity....yet you believe. Is this really rational? And feel free to dig for examples of a thing I believe in that I cannot see, taste, feel, hear or sense in any way. The wind? Love? Go this route and you'll be wrong. There isn't one. And also feel free to claim you are using inductive reasoning. You are not. A deity is a false analogy... that we can go into if you like.

Yes, Deism is a heck of a lot more rational than Christianity, but you cannot avoid the fact that deists believe in deities and are theists. You can try...and you will succeed when you deal with people that are brand new to the discussion. But please don't think you've made a case for yourself on this thread. I refer simply to the "deism is not theism" claim, not on the validity of the deist position.

I can fully understand why you don't want to be grouped in with people that take a flying fuck at a rolling donut...which is how I view faith. You are NOT like them and do NOT deserve to be grouped in with them. I also don't consider anything you have said to be even remotely unintelligent...just a bit irrational. Just a bit. Not much. And I admit you might be right.

It might surprise you to know that I am almost a deist. This universe is too damn incredible to just exist...or so it seems to me. Something weird is happening that we haven't even begun to fathom. Perhaps there is an intelligent creator, or maybe an alien race planted life on our planet. Or maybe there are many universes or something else totally nutty and hard to comprehend. I just don't know, but I don't believe that nothing existed and then it went BOOM!

I totally agree with you that all these manmade religions are absolute bullshit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. There is no evidence of a personal god that interacts with this planet. In fact, I am so confident that this type of deity doesn't exist I would gamble my life on it.

But would I gamble my life that any type of creator doesn't exist? Heck no. All I am saying is that you are no longer just keeping an open mind when you become an actual believer in such a creator. You are now a theist. You actually believe a God exists. Why not remain optimistic? Be skeptical of personal claims of knowledge of gods or a god, but keep your mind open to the possibility.

I view deists with a great deal of respect. They aren't gullible enough to fall for the scam of religion, but they aren't rational enough to refrain from believing in some sort of God. If there was a scale of rationality it might look like this...

1. Strong atheist - slightly irrational, but the odds are in their favor
2. Weak atheist - extremely rational – using solid reason
3. Deist - slightly irrational - they want to believe so they do
4. Christian - completely bonkers with no evidence. I mean NONE

A strong atheist has an actual belief that gods do not exist. In a debate they can be annihilated on the grounds that they cannot prove this affirmative claim. But do they believe in something without reason? No, they have probability on their side. There has NEVER been ANY evidence for ANY god EVER in the history of humanity. They are drawing an inference and forming a conclusion using reason. Is someone being irrational for making the affirmative claim that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist? No, because there is ZERO evidence for this creature’s existence and tons of evidence supporting the idea that this was a hoax. So a strong atheist doesn't KNOW that a deity does not exist, but they make an educated assumption based on known information. Their fault is that they claim to "know" when they don't know with certainty. Nobody can know that a god doesn't exist.

The weak atheist position, or the agnostic atheist is to me the epitome of reason. They do not believe in a God, and rightfully so. There is no evidence. But they understand that they cannot perform a simultaneous search of the entire cosmos (or other universes) and demonstrate that a deity doesn't exist somewhere somehow in some way. They are open to the idea if someone can show some evidence that convinces them, but for the time being they lack the belief.

The deist is slightly irrational...but so very human. They know there isn't any real evidence for a god, but they really really want to believe. Don't we all? They have defined their deity in such a fashion that nobody can possibly pull the warm fuzzy security blanket out from under them. Their evidence is simply mans lack of understanding. Is this really evidence?

Deists are a group of people that are willing to take a small hop of faith (NOTE: deism is not a huge leap like Christianity, but a mere hop) and make the affirmative claim that some sort of God MUST exist because damnit...look at all this shit around us. This is not scientific. It is not rational. But it isn't completely foolish either. It is in the grey area between faith and reason.

This has been a fun thread.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 9/9/03 7:33 pm

Kostya · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

What? No more biting and scratching?

Is everyone here almost a deist or almost an atheist and the dividing line between them is ever so elusive?

I don't think so.

I am a strong atheist. Obviously, I do not agree with Chris’s position that strong atheism is slightly irrational, but that is to be expected and that is not why I’m writing this.

I suppose, I can understand if deists want to call themselves non-theists. I guess, under some unorthodox definition of the word and with some stretch of imagination one can agree with that.

However, I do disagree with Chris and udcdeist that deism is a rational position. Chris calls it “slightly irrational.” Well, if the following example of thinking is representative of deism in general (which I understand it might not be) than I have to say that it does not fall anywhere near my understanding of rational thought. Following text is a quote from udcdeist’s own web site deism.org. It can be found in FAQ under “Are Deists similar to Atheists?” topic:

Quote:

...
It is important to emphasize that the Deist belief in God is not a matter of faith, nor is it a matter of some heroic use of philosophy or science. That the universe came into being by the work of an intelligent power is simply the way our minds work, nothing else makes sense or feels comfortable.
...

If making sense and feeling comfortable justifies belief in something I would like to ask what is the difference between deistic “rational” and good ol’ faith?

Am I missing something?

Thank you.

Edited by: Kostya at: 9/9/03 10:18 pm

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Kostya

Ok damnit. Good point. Deism is totally irrational. I just feel bad saying that to someone who is obviously quite bright and passionate about his beliefs. But you are completely correct. Just because something feels good doesn't make it true.

And I almost always take the strong atheist position when in a casual debate. I feel like a strong atheist. In a formal debate I have yet to figure out a way to overcome the, "prove it" counter.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

Kostya · Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:32 am Post subject: Re: Prove It

Quote:
In a formal debate I have yet to figure out a way to overcome the, "prove it" counter.

I rarely participate in any kind of debates, so I am not very experienced at proving this kind of thing.

To all the people who require that all proof must proceed by strict mathematical deduction, who claims that “negative cannot be proved”, “you cannot be everywhere in the universe at the same time” and so on, I just have to say that such requirements of proof are completely unreasonable. In fact, no one can prove the existence or non-existence of even the basic everyday objects in empirical reality using the above standards of proof.

There is another definition of “proof”, the definition that is used by most of us to form our knowledge about reality. In this sense proof is simply having sufficient amount of evidence to establish a proposition. It is an equivalent of the legal principle of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. For example, the conclusions drawn from applying of Negative Evidence Principle to proposition “God exists” constitutes a sufficient proof of position of strong atheism in my opinion.

Edited by: Kostya at: 9/10/03 9:42 am

seanf 2003 · Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 12:54 pm Post subject: deism

I'd say that deism is rational in the same way that assuming the existence of other people or everyday objects is - these are rational beliefs because it's much more practically useful to believe them than an alternative. For some people, deism may be the same.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: deism

Sean

It is rational to believe a person exists when you can walk up to them, kick them in the shin, smell their cologne, lick their face, hear them shreik, and see their shocked expression. How is it rational to believe a god exists that you cannot see, taste, smell, feel, or hear? Just because a deist finds believing in a god practically useful doesn't make it rational. What if I found it practically useful to believe I could fly or lay eggs?

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

bernt · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:13 am Post subject: Re: nature of god

Naturyl, I see a point in an umbrella project that could reconcile Deists and humanistic naturalists. I have not sign-up as a Bright yet and I have not signed up as a Universists either. But I support both initiatives to reach these groups. Some of the Deists are like modrn Pagans who see God or supernatural powers as symbolic concepts.

Is that really to twist Deism, maybe it is to correct old errors?
I don't think its fair to see Universism as a pantheism. I am no expert on pantheism but being active in their lists since 1997 makes it unlikely to me that Universism is pantheism.

Like you I see myself as somebody who both endorse naturalism and realism. Universism start from the personal experience and allow thoe who identify with its goal to be responsible for their own interpretations and sure you and I could point out what we think is bad reaasoning in their conclusions. I am atheistic towards a Deism that claim a surness of a God. What the site says is that its the individuals own interpretation not that anybody else need to agree. I am a most intolerant negative whiner so I find it interesting that they promote tolerance.

Look at how extremely aggressive the reaction has been towards the Brights Movement. What Universism try to do is to broade the base of who should be included and and to use a less silly name. You write about your Existentianism as an improvement of existentialism and I tried out a similar approach independent of you a while ago I named it Existentism and this is also an improvevment of existentialism. So why be soo critical towards the Universist folks, they do as you and me and the Brights. Trying out brainchilds in real life.

Bernt

seanf 2003 · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: nature of religion

Jeremy:"Slippery little devil, this god thingy, isn't it? Actually "god" is a word that doesn't really mean anything at all. It is a symbol without a referent."

If it was a word that meant nothing, we couldn't really argue about it. It doesn't refer to any sense-data, but to one of a variety of ideas, concepts within the mind.

Jeremy:"What is being posited is a not-animal, not-force, volitional entity capable of causing important effects in the real world. But this runs directly counter to the facts of biology. There is one, and only one way for less complex to become more complex; for less capable to become more capable; for volition to appear. That way is evolution by natural selection."

What does volitional mean? You assume God came into being -this is directly contrary to most religious beliefs. I haven't heard of many biological Gods either. As for natural selection being the only way for less complex to become more complex, that's just limiting the possibilities of existence to the point of ridicule.

Jeremy:"Conclusion: The word "god" refers to a member of a class of concepts that have no possibility of actually existing in the real world."

You're going to have to come up with a lot better arguments than the ones you have put forward to convince me that your conclusion is true for anything other than paradoxes, let alone God. (even the paradoxes are a bit iffy).

Dom · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 3:52 pm Post subject: The meaning of God

1) Sean: "It doesn't refer to any sense-data, but to one of a variety of ideas, concepts within the mind. "

2) Jeremy:"Conclusion: The word "god" refers to a member of a class of concepts that have no possibility of actually existing in the real world."

3) Sean: "You're going to have to come up with a lot better arguments than the ones you have put forward to convince me that your conclusion is true for anything other than paradoxes, let alone God. (even the paradoxes are a bit iffy)."

But by your own assertion (in 1), the concept of God exists purely in the mind. It is therefore a subjective figment of the imagination, and as Jeremy says (in 2), these concepts have no possibility of existing.

Just because we can rationalise & communicate a concept doesnt make it REAL. I have a concept of a master race of 6-foot high floating radishes. I can communicate this idea to other (like minded, if such were possible) beings, who can understand and argue back about this concept. Its still a load of tosh though.

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: The meaning of God

seanf 2003

Quote:
What does volitional mean?

It means, having the ability to self-motivate. Standard dictionary definition, nothing fancy

Quote:
You assume God came into being –

Actually I assume "god" didn't come into being, since it doesn't exist. If there were a god, however, it would have had to have 'come into being'

Quote:
this is directly contrary to most religious beliefs.

Yes, aren't religious beliefs silly?

Quote:
As for natural selection being the only way for less complex to become more complex, that's just limiting the possibilities of existence

Reality does the limiting, not me. Maybe there is some other way… but none has every been imagined, much less hypothesized.

Quote:
You're going to have to come up with a lot better arguments than the ones you have put forward to convince me that your conclusion is true

I don't expect to convince you that my conclusion is true. Religious belief is not rational, and therefore, it is not subject to rational argument. However, I was asked how I know that there is/are no god/gods, so I explained.

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

Edited by: Jeremy1952 at: 9/15/03 8:42 pm

Naturyl · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: The meaning of God

Bernt,

Thanks for your reply, and I'll take it under advisement. You make a fair point regarding the fact that many of us are trying in our own way to improve the common lot of all freethinkers, and if this Universism truly seeks the same goal, it is reasonable of you to ask that we be lenient toward it, depite any errors we may percieve in the underlying reasoning.

bernt · Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:40 am Post subject: Re: The meaning of God

Thanks Nat,

here is a link to a defender of The Brights Movement.
www.booktalk.org/rational...rights.php

*Smile* it on the site that supports this lsit we make use of now. Roundtable at Book Talks.

So some who are rational in their thinking find it maybe a bit silly to use Bright but its more important to find somethign that unite us all. Human values could be such a rational and realistic common goal? Me not being a native english speaker has turned the order upside down. I see myself as a humanistic naturalist.

For a Bright then the concept of God or Deus or spirit or "religious experiences and feelings a kind of way of life. More like a philosophical way of life where the extraordinary claims could be seen as apologetic bragging or Pep Talk for the supporters.

Bateson, Rappaport, Stark and most likely Atran, Boyer, Irons, and many many more see the extraordinary claism to be a kind of culture. These claims are not supposed to be questioned at all. They are more to be seen as "givens".

The functional use is to test the loyalty of teh members of the in-group. If they accept the extra-ordinary claims of the group they are a member of then this their way to intuitively know that teh claims is "spititual truths" and not metaphysical truths. The non-member show his or her ignorance of the secret of the group. To question the truth is to show that one don't give ones assent to the group, one is a heretic or against the group, an enemy to the members.

My very wild guess is that Paul and Mynga choosed the word bright just to test the non-joiners so they could scream their dislike towards The Brights Movement. The joiners see trhough the bragging of being bright and see the merit in it. Ok my very wild or too wild guess.

Bernt

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 8:56 am Post subject: Re: The meaning of God

bernt

Quote:
My very wild guess is that Paul and Mynga choosed the word bright just to test the non-joiners so they could scream their dislike towards The Brights Movement.

very insightful. I think you may be on to something. Doesn't necessarily have to be conscious on their part, either; since coalition building/in-group out-group behaviour is a deep innate part of who we are.

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

seanf 2003 · Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: The meaning of God

Dom - I didn't say God only existed in the mind, just that it wasn't refering to any sense data. Rationalising a concept doesn't make it real. However, sensing something doesn't make it real either. It's all a question of which bits you choose to believe.

Jeremy: "If there were a god, however, it would have had to have come into being"

Why? A God that has come into being isn't the general concept of God.

Jeremy: "Reality does the limiting, not me. Maybe there is some other way… but none has every been imagined, much less hypothesized."

Before Darwin came along, this same argument could have been used for the existence of God - the teleological argument. Natural selection is a good explanation given the starting conditions and physical laws of this universe. However, God isn't generally supposed to exist within this universe either.

Jeremy: "I don't expect to convince you that my conclusion is true. Religious belief is not rational, and therefore, it is not subject to rational argument. However, I was asked how I know that there is/are no god/gods, so I explained."

You don't need to break down religious belief to convince me -I'm not a believer. You're also right that if you could come up with a rational disproof of God, I could get around it by appealing beyond the rational. However, that would be pointless in a discussion forum, and should you come up with such a disproof, one that I can't challenge, I would admit defeat. I wouldn't be bothered by that - I'm doing this out of interest rather than religious conviction.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT