Haggis_McMutton wrote:I agree with those definitions.
On a slight tangent, I think agnostics do the whole "anti-dogma" movement a diservice when they claim "atheism = theism". Yes there are fringe elements in both. But I think you have to agree that the percentage of gnostic theists is much larger than that of gnostic atheists and that, in general, more atheists have actually critically examined their beliefs than theists. Comparing, for instance, Dawkins and Hitchens with The Rabbis declaring Jihad is absurd.
Using Descartes' example of knowledge being like a building, belief or disbelief in god in this case is the bottom floor. The moral code, degree of control over adherents, rituals, etc. are the floors above it. If an idea is disproven at its foundation, the ideas derived from it are as well. No matter how ridiculous or popular it is.
So, first of all, are we talking about deism or theism ? Do you think a creator that actively intervenes in the universe is a real possibility? or just a initial force sort of thing.
If it's the intervening kind then acceptance of such a being is pretty much denying all knowledge, as then the universe could very easily have been created last Tuesday by this being with all our memories and such being an illusion
If it's the deistic kind, fair enough, I find that possibility much more sensible.
Well deism is belief in a supernatural entity, which I guess means it falls within the broader term, theism.
Whatever science explains, we can rule out as being caused by supernatural intervention. Whatever it cannot explain, we cannot rule out supernatural intervention, nor can we rule out natural law. If a natural law is discovered, only then can we rule out supernatural intervention.
Right now, the only major thing that cannot be explained by science as of right now is the origin of the unverse.
Basically, yes, until there are futher things that science cannot possibly explain or until there is proof otherwise, the supernatural entity side I am discussing is a deistic one.
Since such a belief doesn't actually try to push you towards any kind of action (unlike traditional theism)
See the building analogy above. The "pusing toward any kind of action" is only a derivative of the original belief in a certain type of god, so taking down that belief by default takes down any "pusing toward any kind of action." If the supernatural entity were proven to be real, and as described exactly in the Quran, for example, then any beliefs that are derived from it that haven't been proven wrong by science become more credible, and the "kinds of action" advocated in the Quran therefore becomes credible. It also rules out a ton of other explanations. And yes, that opens up the question about how such an entity came to be, but if this entity lives outside of the physical world, we still can't possibly know, because there are no bounds outside of our physical world (that we know of).
But that hasn't happened yet, so we must derive ethics and worldviews from logical and secular dialogue.
