I wholeheartedly agree. I had a professor (a former priest) who thought it was absurd that I was willing to use the term creator but unwilling to admit a God. To his dogma they are one and the same. But for me, even if a creator has the power to pull the plug on this experiment, my current thinking doesn’t allow omnipotence in the sense used by most theists. And I can’t imagine that a creator in this context has the ability to hear our thoughts, respond to daily minutia, or has any interest in dictating morality to a bunch of bits in a hard drive.
From your reply, I don’t think I was clear enough about what I meant.
I’m a theist, or not, dependent on my attitude to a purported God, not on a purported God’s attitude toward me, and not on anything the God does, intends, or wants.
Let the usual All Powerful Celestial Psychopath actually exist. Knows all, sees all, and will judge all in the end. Let me know it, not just believe it. No faith. Overwhelming evidence.
Knowing that still doesn’t make me a theist.
I think modern day theism is best characterized as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave.
I saw the best (and most horrifying) example while driving past a church one day. I’m still kicking myself for not taking a picture. If anyone can place the phrase, as I’m guessing it is some quote or allusion, please provide the reference.
“Though I burn in the flames of Hell, I will Love the Lord my God.”
I don’t think it’s quite enough to simply have a particular attitude to a God to be a theist. It has to go both ways.
the·ism
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
I think modern day theism is best characterized as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave.
I think your definition of theism is filled with disutility.
My ex-wife has been watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos. She remarked that it was impossible to watch it without believing in god. I told her Tyson was a rather famous atheist. She was puzzled. I suggested to her that the God that Tyson didn’t believe in is a different god than the one that she does find evidence for in the power and beauty of the universe.
It would be better if we could unpack the terms. If your definition of theism as “as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave” was common usage, then it would make sense to use the word that way. But despite the prevalence of the judeo-christian-islamo white haired god with a personality who demands worship and picks winners and losers, this is not at all an obvious definition to anybody who grows up outside those traditions. One would expect a great amount of value to be unlocked, a great number of arguments to be converted to discussions, if those who hate theism as you defined it were able to understand that a significant fraction of the time, the people they are talking to have no idea that that is what they are talking about.
But despite the prevalence of the judeo-christian-islamo white haired god with a personality who demands worship and picks winners and losers,
Despite those 3.8 billion people? I think my definition applies to the vast majority of theists in the world.
If you just want to be a deist, and say that you think the natural order implies some intentional Creator, fine. I agree that that is a very different thing than what I’ve described. I also think it’s poor inference, but that’s an entirely separate matter, and really insignificant, compared to people who think we’re all justly slaves, that they know what our Master wants, and think it’s their duty to satisfy his wants.
Keep in mind that the theists were busy lumping deists like Thomas Paine in with atheists. My definition is based on what I consider not just the common feature, but the distinguishing feature of theists. Deists don’t really have it.
I suggested to her that the God that Tyson didn’t believe in is a different god than the one that she does find evidence for in the power and beauty of the universe.
To be clear, Tyson doesn’t believe in your wife’s deistic Creator God either.
p.s. I don’t know why people had to downvote you. Your thoughtful reply was appreciated by me.
But despite the prevalence of the judeo-christian-islamo white haired god with a personality who demands worship and picks winners and losers,
Despite those 3.8 billion people? I think my definition applies to the vast majority of theists in the world.
There are many people who believe in god who are not primarily interested in being an adoring slave. You can argue with me that they are irrational or aren’t understanding the implications of their professed faith, but the point of a good definition is not to enable one side or the other to score rhetorical points without doing heavy lifting, the point is to actually mean the same thing to broad swaths of people on various sides of the debate.
Keep in mind that the theists were busy lumping deists like Thomas Paine in with atheists. My definition is based on what I consider not just the common feature, but the distinguishing feature of theists. Deists don’t really have it.
It is common in arguments that the one side excuses its own poor choices and irrationalities by citing the similar poor choices and irrationalities of the other side. I don’t think this is the best we can do, as rationalists.
p.s. I don’t know why people had to downvote you. Your thoughtful reply was appreciated by me.
Well thank you! Of course, for me, a net downvote of 1 (my current status) is doing pretty well, but I definitely appreciate a kind word.
God or gods aren’t necessarily omnipotent in all religions. Just because you don’t believe in textbook Catholicism it doesn’t mean that you are an atheist.
Sure, but if I believe that aliens in a multiverse outside of our own happened to create a simulation that is our universe, does that constitute God in any sense intended by religion? Theism requires that the God has an active role in the creations lives, not simply a belief in a creator—omnipotent or not. The only religion I can think of that mention aliens in doctrine is Scientology. And while I’m sure that most people would allow for Scientology as a religion, I’m pretty sure that with a hundred thousand people arranging the following list of religions based on best to worst religious beliefs, my bet is on scientology coming in dead last.
Which doesn’t say anything about the actual validity of those religions, just that the majority of people would probably view a religion steeped in aliens to be less like a religion than the others.
Aliens from other planets are one thing, the sort of thing weird low-status UFO cultists believe.
“Aliens” from outside our universe, who happened to have created it, and maybe even want to have a personal relationship with us (otherwise why would they try to send messages encoded in alpha?) are gods under another name.
Agreed, simply calling a creator an alien is simply redefining alien to mean god. I gotta give it to you LWers, conversations on here have certainly proved already to be quite a bit more interesting than with my old line cooks.
Sure. Theism is best defined in terms of an attitude toward a being, not about it’s existence, what it has done, or what it is capable of doing.
I wholeheartedly agree. I had a professor (a former priest) who thought it was absurd that I was willing to use the term creator but unwilling to admit a God. To his dogma they are one and the same. But for me, even if a creator has the power to pull the plug on this experiment, my current thinking doesn’t allow omnipotence in the sense used by most theists. And I can’t imagine that a creator in this context has the ability to hear our thoughts, respond to daily minutia, or has any interest in dictating morality to a bunch of bits in a hard drive.
From your reply, I don’t think I was clear enough about what I meant.
I’m a theist, or not, dependent on my attitude to a purported God, not on a purported God’s attitude toward me, and not on anything the God does, intends, or wants.
Let the usual All Powerful Celestial Psychopath actually exist. Knows all, sees all, and will judge all in the end. Let me know it, not just believe it. No faith. Overwhelming evidence.
Knowing that still doesn’t make me a theist.
I think modern day theism is best characterized as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave.
I saw the best (and most horrifying) example while driving past a church one day. I’m still kicking myself for not taking a picture. If anyone can place the phrase, as I’m guessing it is some quote or allusion, please provide the reference.
“Though I burn in the flames of Hell, I will Love the Lord my God.”
I don’t think it’s quite enough to simply have a particular attitude to a God to be a theist. It has to go both ways.
the·ism noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
I think your definition of theism is filled with disutility.
My ex-wife has been watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos. She remarked that it was impossible to watch it without believing in god. I told her Tyson was a rather famous atheist. She was puzzled. I suggested to her that the God that Tyson didn’t believe in is a different god than the one that she does find evidence for in the power and beauty of the universe.
It would be better if we could unpack the terms. If your definition of theism as “as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave” was common usage, then it would make sense to use the word that way. But despite the prevalence of the judeo-christian-islamo white haired god with a personality who demands worship and picks winners and losers, this is not at all an obvious definition to anybody who grows up outside those traditions. One would expect a great amount of value to be unlocked, a great number of arguments to be converted to discussions, if those who hate theism as you defined it were able to understand that a significant fraction of the time, the people they are talking to have no idea that that is what they are talking about.
Despite those 3.8 billion people? I think my definition applies to the vast majority of theists in the world.
If you just want to be a deist, and say that you think the natural order implies some intentional Creator, fine. I agree that that is a very different thing than what I’ve described. I also think it’s poor inference, but that’s an entirely separate matter, and really insignificant, compared to people who think we’re all justly slaves, that they know what our Master wants, and think it’s their duty to satisfy his wants.
Keep in mind that the theists were busy lumping deists like Thomas Paine in with atheists. My definition is based on what I consider not just the common feature, but the distinguishing feature of theists. Deists don’t really have it.
To be clear, Tyson doesn’t believe in your wife’s deistic Creator God either.
p.s. I don’t know why people had to downvote you. Your thoughtful reply was appreciated by me.
There are many people who believe in god who are not primarily interested in being an adoring slave. You can argue with me that they are irrational or aren’t understanding the implications of their professed faith, but the point of a good definition is not to enable one side or the other to score rhetorical points without doing heavy lifting, the point is to actually mean the same thing to broad swaths of people on various sides of the debate.
It is common in arguments that the one side excuses its own poor choices and irrationalities by citing the similar poor choices and irrationalities of the other side. I don’t think this is the best we can do, as rationalists.
Well thank you! Of course, for me, a net downvote of 1 (my current status) is doing pretty well, but I definitely appreciate a kind word.
Cheers, Mike
God or gods aren’t necessarily omnipotent in all religions.
Just because you don’t believe in textbook Catholicism it doesn’t mean that you are an atheist.
Sure, but if I believe that aliens in a multiverse outside of our own happened to create a simulation that is our universe, does that constitute God in any sense intended by religion? Theism requires that the God has an active role in the creations lives, not simply a belief in a creator—omnipotent or not. The only religion I can think of that mention aliens in doctrine is Scientology. And while I’m sure that most people would allow for Scientology as a religion, I’m pretty sure that with a hundred thousand people arranging the following list of religions based on best to worst religious beliefs, my bet is on scientology coming in dead last.
Christianity, Jainism, Sikh, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Judaism, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Wicca.
Which doesn’t say anything about the actual validity of those religions, just that the majority of people would probably view a religion steeped in aliens to be less like a religion than the others.
Aliens from other planets are one thing, the sort of thing weird low-status UFO cultists believe.
“Aliens” from outside our universe, who happened to have created it, and maybe even want to have a personal relationship with us (otherwise why would they try to send messages encoded in alpha?) are gods under another name.
Do you know where the word “avatar” comes from?
Agreed, simply calling a creator an alien is simply redefining alien to mean god. I gotta give it to you LWers, conversations on here have certainly proved already to be quite a bit more interesting than with my old line cooks.