What do you or don't you believe?

[_dartagnan]

Deism is a sub category of theism since theism is the belief in at least one or more Gods. All the rest (cosomotheism, deism, pantheism, monotheism, henotheism, etc) are al subsets of the same "ism." The one that has no real similarity to theism is atheism.

I prefer to call myself a theist, especially in the context of exchanges with atheists. But I don't deny being a deist. There is no need to narrow it down in the context of debate among atheists. Theist, deist, monotheist, etc, would all make similar arguments with atheists I think. We don't insist on calling Muslims monotheists and Mormons henotheists do we?

I never understood why atheists thought it could work in their favor if a scientist was a deist instead of a traditional theist. You're still dealing with someone who rejects atheism, and in Einstein's case, atheism was strongly rejected.

[_dartagnan]

I don't see how this hurts at all, especially if the Gods are an end product.

Well, at the very least it creates more questions that demand answers.

And LDS apologists are burdened enough as it is with questions they can't answer.

Eventually more and more LDS will get sick of the fact that just about every facet of Mormonism requires more and more ad hoc "just so" answers to troubling questions.

[_Mudcat]

Welcome to the board, mudcat!

I'm a never-mo, and never a believer in any organized religion -- although I've attended various denominations. I've been a deist and am currently a very comfortable agnostic atheist. I'm apathetic about religion at times, other times I can find some of the sentiments gloriously beautiful, and just as often I may recoil from beliefs or those that say they are believers.

I thought your story was interesting and thanks for sharing it. I've read of many stories of those that felt they turned their lives about because of the forgiveness qualities of Christianity. That is actually one thing that I find quite lovely about Christianity in general.

Hi Moniker,

I'm curious, what is an agnostic atheist? Seems like a paradoxical definition.

[_dartagnan]

I'm curious, what is an agnostic atheist? Seems like a paradoxical definition.

It is just a cute way for an atheist to assert his atheism with an attempt at justification. Because "agnostic" atheism means he doesn't believe God could be known to exist anyway, so there is no reason to believe it.

It is also a nifty way for an atheist to claim his mind is not open to any evidence to the contrary since any prospect of knowing about God's existence is impossible. Why try knowing something if it is impossible to know?

Of course the second qualifying assertion is based on what one must ask. Why should we assume God cannot be known? Why would any type of atheist feel the need to assert such a thing? And who are atheists to make this kind of claim anyway, given that their first premise already rejects the idea?

[_Moniker]

Hi, mudcat.

I say I'm an atheist (now -- I don't know why I was hesitant to call myself that for a while - yet, I was!) because I lack a belief in God or any gods. I'm agnostic because I can not be absolutely certain that God does not exist. I don't think he does, yet, I can't state that with any actual certainty. If God rode down in his chariot I might be swayed. Of course I would probably just send myself to a padded room if that happened. :)

I don't think agnosticism or atheism is exclusive of each other.

If it makes it easier for you just know I don't believe in God. That works for me. :)

[_dartagnan]

I see JAK has been spending an hour on a response now.

Get ready for the traditional JAK ten pager.

[Guest]

As McGrath notes, "Dawkins is forced to contend with the highly awkward fact that his view that the natural sciences are an intellectual superhighway to atheism is rejected by most scientists, irrespective of their religious views."

Just to give you an idea how much of a ass Dawkins really is, when Freeman Dyson won a Nobel Prize for his work in quantum electrodynamics and gave an acceptance speech celebrating the achievements of religion (and criticizing its downside), Dawkins viewed this as an act of apostasy and betrayal, offering "an endorsement of religion by one of the world's most distinguished physicists." Then when Dyson later said he was a Christian who wasn't interested in the dogma of the Trinity, Dawkins said that this meant he wasn't a real Christian! He accused Dyson of lying about being a Christian: "Isn't that just what an atheistic scientist would say, if he wanted to sound Christian?"

Many atheists like Dawkins have tried to equate Einstein's theism with Spinoza, based on a few context-free citations. But according to Jammer, Einstein's knowledge of Spinoza was rather limited, having only read Ethics and turned down repeated requests to write about Spinoza's philosophy: "I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza." Jammer said they shared the same belief in determinism but the similarity was "articificial and unwarranted" to assume Spinoza influenced Einstein's science. Jammer said Einstein felt a sense of brotherhood with Spinoza but that it had more to do with the fact that they "shared a need for solitude as well as the fate of having been reared within the Jewish heritage but having become subsequently alienated from its religious heritage." Atheists today wishing to claim Einstein as one of their own, continually ignore his explicit statement that he isn't one of them.

Einstein citations you won't find Dawkins addressing:

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infintely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist (I.e. Spinoza). We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God. We see the universe marvelously aranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.

I agree with this entirely. It is the heart of my belief system which I prefer to call natural theology. Since Einstein, the anthropic principle has done plenty to bolster this position too. It submits that all the numerous constants in the universe serve one common purpose: the existence of human life. The once popular "random universe" is suffering and will eventually be obsolete.

Jammer wrote, "Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist. In a conversation with Prince Hubertus of Lowensteing, for example, he declared, 'what really makes me angry is that they [atheists like Dawkins!] quote me for support of their views.' Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God." Despite this, atheists try to use citations about a personal God, as evidence for his rejection of any God.

Like Spinoza, Einstein rejected an anthropomorphic view of God. But unlike Spinoza, Einstein believed God manifests himself, "in the laws of the universe as a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Einstein believed the "mind of God" was the great mystery, and that is what he wanted to discover. God is the great mathematician behind the laws of the universe. Dawkins chalks this all up as poetic metaphor so he can continue to justify his lie that Einstein was an atheist.

Here is an article that talks about Dawkins' embarrassing and deceptive attempt to rewrite Einsteinian history.

Dawkins seeks to show that theism is pretty much incompatible with modern science. If Einstein disagrees, then who is Dawkins to say otherwise? ... Faced with this daunting list of believers, Dawkins is desperate to wrest Einstein for the atheist camp.

The problem for Dawkins is that Einstein repeatedly refers to God. Famously Einstein said "God is subtle but He is not malicious" and "God does not play dice" with the universe. Dawkins rewrites Einstein's remarks. "God does not play dice" becomes "Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things." Dawkins insists that his revisions are justified because "Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense."

Dawkins' case for Einstein's atheism is based on quotations from Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion. At best, Dawkins writes, Einstein was a pantheist who identified God with the laws of nature themselves. But when philosopher Anthony Flew went to the original source, he discovered that Dawkins had lifted quotations favorable to his case while excluding statements that refuted it. Einstein specifically repudiated both the atheist and the pantheist label. "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." Dawkins forgot to include that line. While Einstein clearly stated that he did not believe in a "personal God" he also spoke of God as a "superior mind," "Illimitable spirit" and "mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Einstein spoke of the laws of nature pointing to an Infinite Mind that to him represented the true nature of God. "Every one who is seriously engaged in te pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble...My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. Isn't it interesting that these quotations appear nowhere in Dawkins' book. It seems that atheists like Dawkins have to suppress the facts in order to establish their theories. Can an atheism so selective and indeed manipulative actually claim to be sustained by evidence and reason?
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/1 ... eve-in-god

Your turn JAK...

[_Trevor]

I don't see how this hurts at all, especially if the Gods are an end product.

Yes. It can continue to be true as long as one is able to find new, creative interpretations.

[_marg]

Deism is a sub category of theism since theism is the belief in at least one or more Gods. All the rest (cosomotheism, deism, pantheism, monotheism, henotheism, etc) are al subsets of the same "ism." The one that has no real similarity to theism is atheism.

Well I used the label "deist" to get a sense of what your God belief entails. People use these labels you listed as a short hand way of getting to an appreciation of what someone believes.

I prefer to call myself a theist, especially in the context of exchanges with atheists. But I don't deny being a deist. There is no need to narrow it down in the context of debate among atheists. Theist, deist, monotheist, etc, would all make similar arguments with atheists I think. We don't insist on calling Muslims monotheists and Mormons henotheists do we?

This discussion is also about your claim that you share a similar God belief to what Einstein did. If we can not pin point what your belief is because of lack of information from you, then we are unable to agree with you that you share a similar God belief to Einstein.

I never understood why atheists thought it could work in their favor if a scientist was a deist instead of a traditional theist. You're still dealing with someone who rejects atheism, and in Einstein's case, atheism was strongly rejected.

You are jumping the gun, first I'm trying to establish what your beliefs are and then I can compare to Einstein quotes. If for example you are a Christian which you don't deny, even though I've asked you twice in this thread then you are not a deist. You are the one being vague on just what your God beliefs are, but you seem keen to tie your beliefs in with Einstein's.

by the way, Dawkins does use some quotes to illustrate Einstein wasn't a deist. 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or Did God have a choice in creating the Universe' All those quotes are not from a deist. They could be from someone who believes in an interfering sort of God which I'll label theist, but we know Einstein didn't believe in that. So what is left?

[_Trevor]

It is also a nifty way for an atheist to claim his mind is not open to any evidence to the contrary since any prospect of knowing about God's existence is impossible. Why try knowing something if it is impossible to know?

Of course the second qualifying assertion is based on what one must ask. Why should we assume God cannot be known? Why would any type of atheist feel the need to assert such a thing? And who are atheists to make this kind of claim anyway, given that their first premise already rejects the idea?

Are you put off by the recent aggressiveness of certain atheists, or are you really angry at atheism? What is wrong with denying the existence of God?