Can you reliably communicate a good approximation of what you believe to another without reference to decision theory?
If yes, I’ll accept your hypothesis that I’ve been reading the wrong comments of yours.
If no, I really doubt that Aquinas would recognize what you believe as what he believed.
(And I don’t know what the situation is among the average Catholic, but IMX the average protestant doesn’t even know who Aquinas is, so my point may still hold anyway....)
Can you reliably communicate a good approximation of what you believe to another without reference to decision theory?
I think so. There is a supremely powerful person, Who is the Form of the Good, Who is perfectly simple… yeah, pretty sure I can do it using accepted theological terminology.
Does it matter what the average theist believes? If Aquinas doesn’t believe in the same God that a typical Baptist churchgoer does, I don’t think that means that Aquinas isn’t a theist. If the average biology students don’t have the same definition of “gene” as the best biologists do… (This is like some really weird variation on No True Scotsman.)
I think so. There is a supremely powerful person, Who is the Form of the Good, Who is perfectly simple… yeah, pretty sure I can do it using accepted theological terminology.
But I don’t think those words coming from you are generated by the same thought process that most theists use to make similar statements. You use the same words, but you mean something different. At least, that is my impression.
Does it matter what the average theist believes?
No. But at some point it becomes helpful to try and make sure everyone means similar things when using the same word. If that’s not possible then maybe it’s a good time to taboo the word. I’m thinking that “theist” usually refers to a particular cluster of beliefs that are sorta similar to yours but different enough that I’m not sure if calling yourself a theist clarifies or obscures your actual beliefs. I’m leaning towards “obscures”...
You use the same words, but you mean something different. At least, that is my impression.
My impression differs… like, there’s only so many different things “supremely powerful person” and “Form of the Good” can mean, ya know? The meanings of those words all seem pretty straightforward.
mmm.… I was about to agree with you, but after some thought, no, I think those words are incredibly vague. I can see adherents of most any religion agreeing with them. And the various religions typically think that they disagree with each other. I still maintain that by the time you define your beliefs at the same specificity as a typical human religion does, most Christians will not count you among their number.
I’m not saying that they’re right and you’re wrong (I’ll bet on you if those are my options) just that you aren’t really saying the same thing.
Does it matter what the average theist believes? If Aquinas doesn’t believe in the same God that a typical Baptist churchgoer does, I don’t think that means that Aquinas isn’t a theist.
It matters if you’re arguing from a majoritarian “orthodoxy as democracy spread over time” perspective. If the vast majority of theists throughout history didn’t actually believe in the God of Aquinas, but rather in the God of the old testament (or whatever), then you can’t cite their belief as evidence supporting Aquinas’ (or your) God.
Can you reliably communicate a good approximation of what you believe to another without reference to decision theory?
If yes, I’ll accept your hypothesis that I’ve been reading the wrong comments of yours.
If no, I really doubt that Aquinas would recognize what you believe as what he believed.
(And I don’t know what the situation is among the average Catholic, but IMX the average protestant doesn’t even know who Aquinas is, so my point may still hold anyway....)
I think so. There is a supremely powerful person, Who is the Form of the Good, Who is perfectly simple… yeah, pretty sure I can do it using accepted theological terminology.
Does it matter what the average theist believes? If Aquinas doesn’t believe in the same God that a typical Baptist churchgoer does, I don’t think that means that Aquinas isn’t a theist. If the average biology students don’t have the same definition of “gene” as the best biologists do… (This is like some really weird variation on No True Scotsman.)
But I don’t think those words coming from you are generated by the same thought process that most theists use to make similar statements. You use the same words, but you mean something different. At least, that is my impression.
No. But at some point it becomes helpful to try and make sure everyone means similar things when using the same word. If that’s not possible then maybe it’s a good time to taboo the word. I’m thinking that “theist” usually refers to a particular cluster of beliefs that are sorta similar to yours but different enough that I’m not sure if calling yourself a theist clarifies or obscures your actual beliefs. I’m leaning towards “obscures”...
My impression differs… like, there’s only so many different things “supremely powerful person” and “Form of the Good” can mean, ya know? The meanings of those words all seem pretty straightforward.
mmm.… I was about to agree with you, but after some thought, no, I think those words are incredibly vague. I can see adherents of most any religion agreeing with them. And the various religions typically think that they disagree with each other. I still maintain that by the time you define your beliefs at the same specificity as a typical human religion does, most Christians will not count you among their number.
I’m not saying that they’re right and you’re wrong (I’ll bet on you if those are my options) just that you aren’t really saying the same thing.
It matters if you’re arguing from a majoritarian “orthodoxy as democracy spread over time” perspective. If the vast majority of theists throughout history didn’t actually believe in the God of Aquinas, but rather in the God of the old testament (or whatever), then you can’t cite their belief as evidence supporting Aquinas’ (or your) God.
Or am I misunderstanding your argument?