Religion and Individualism

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

"The Church" or "the church"? The former is often used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church- all the references in your post seem to be to that- whereas, being Finland and all, Nerdanel would be talking about the Lutheran Church.

do any non-catholics actually call the catholic church "The Church"?

just out of ignorant curiosity.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

I wonder how low the membership in the church has to be before people realize that we need to separate it from the state..

What sort of membership does the Finnish Orthodox Church have?

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What sort of membership does the Finnish Orthodox Church have?

about 1,1% of the population.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What sort of membership does the Finnish Orthodox Church have?

Orthodox ones. Finns, mostly

Seriously, I'm guessing with such a small membership but still being an estasblished church that historically this comes from Russki pressure, da?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Wasn't Finland Orthodox for a while, until Catholic Teutonic Knights came and squashed the Orthodox?

[GrayMouser]

A quick wiki shows it involves the Third Finnish Crusade, the Sweden-Novgorodian Wars, the Treaty of Noteborg, and relations with the Karelians and Tavastians, but no references to Teutonic Knights...

[Rían]

*headdesk*

I love math!

(never was good at history... )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Looks like I'm thinking of Alexander Nevsky, who fought both Teutonic Knights and Swedish invaders. Oops.

[Millane]

For some reason i recently read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It was a massive bore frankly, and his attempts at humour were lame as... One thing i did find slightly interesting was his so called atheist stance.

I knew the old moot stomping ground would have discussed it, and in my quick search i saw they had quite recently in the multiculturalist thread. I didnt want to include this there since it seems nothing to do with multiculturalism. Granted i didnt read much of that thread (gimme a break its like 20 pages) so if it has been covered already, sorry.

I had trouble grasping Dawkins agnostic/atheist distinction. For those fortunate not to have read, he introduces probability to the god question and defines 7 distinct groups that go.


1. Strong theist - Knows God

2. High probability but short of 100% - De facto theist

3. Higher than 50% but not very high.

4. 50% either way

5. Lower than 50% but not very low

6. Low probability but short of zero - De facto atheist

7. Strong atheist - Knows there is no God


Now in my understanding 1 = theist; 2->6 = agnostic; 7 = Atheist... and you see my dilemma.

Are the atheists here those Dick de factos? Whats wrong with agnosticism?

[Tessar]

I have moved the thread here, so that we don't have too many religion threads running rampant.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would say that it's not about knowing, but about taking a belief-stance. Theism is taking a positive belief-stance that there is a God, atheism is taking a positive belief-stance that there is not a God, and agnosticism is refusing to take a belief-stance either way. Like voting "for, against, or abstain."

[Insidious Rex]

Id say agnosticism is more the conscious realization that you dont and quite possibly cant know. If I had to force an essay into a single sentence...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't like "know," because I don't know what it means to know.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I have moved the thread here, so that we don't have too many religion threads running rampant.

hahaha fair enough its only incidentally religious, definately aint trying to entice more religious debate. Gods but a bit part, the main star is the "knowing". Is there still a philosophy thread kicking? perhaps it could be moved there...

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I would say that it's not about knowing, but about taking a belief-stance. Theism is taking a positive belief-stance that there is a God, atheism is taking a positive belief-stance that there is not a God, and agnosticism is refusing to take a belief-stance either way. Like voting "for, against, or abstain."

take agnostic literally though - without knowledge. I think an agnostic could still have a belief, theyd just leave room for doubt. I think your abstemious agnostic would be harder to find than god Does the agnostic then feature on the scale of 1 - 7? Also how would you differentiate between one who believes strongly there is no God and one who knows there is no God?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Id say agnosticism is more the conscious realization that you dont and quite possibly cant know. If I had to force an essay into a single sentence...

If only Dawkins couldve been as succinct! Instead he ascribes odds

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Like voting "for, against, or abstain."

Hm, I see agnosticism more like "the jury's still out".

Or more personally: "I don't know whether there's a god, or more, or none at all, but I sure as hell can't really give a damn."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Millane

take agnostic literally though - without knowledge. I think an agnostic could still have a belief, theyd just leave room for doubt. I think your abstemious agnostic would be harder to find than god Does the agnostic then feature on the scale of 1 - 7? Also how would you differentiate between one who believes strongly there is no God and one who knows there is no God?

If you want to take it literally, it would mean one who does not have gnosis, an ancient Greek understanding of knowledge which is quite different from the concepts we work with today. Deriving meaning in a purely etymological fashion is rarely helpful.

As I said before, I don't like defining it in terms of knowledge, because I don't know what it means to know something, let alone that God exists, that God doesn't exist, or that you cannot know whether God exists. It just opens too many cans of worms, and so I prefer to interpret in terms of belief-stances.

I think the scale is not helpful in defining agnosticism. Either you believe God exists, you believe God doesn't exist, or you do not make a judgment either way. Now, we may admit shades of grey: someone who is not certain that God exists, but chooses to believe that he does; someone who does not make a clear claim either way, but is inclined to think that God doesn't exist. But to try to interpret it as a simplistic continuous spectrum is problematic.

Originally Posted by Earniel

Hm, I see agnosticism more like "the jury's still out".

Close enough to "abstain" for me.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If you want to take it literally, it would mean one who does not have gnosis, an ancient Greek understanding of knowledge which is quite different from the concepts we work with today. Deriving meaning in a purely etymological fashion is rarely helpful.

Literally is how it was taught to me. Admittedly my uni was rather behind the times, but aren't they all Wouldnt groups 1 and 7 hold to some kind of ancient Greek 'gnosis'?
Knowing is a tricky word, but look at it in terms of groups 1 and 7 claim to know, whereas the rest are probably like you and me, less eager to claim.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Either you believe God exists

someone who is not certain that God exists, but chooses to believe that he does

Are these not the same?

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Or more personally: "I don't know whether there's a god, or more, or none at all, but I sure as hell can't really give a damn."

this heres how i feel, and id describe myself agnostic

[GrayMouser]

While some agnostics are in the "evidence's not in" camp, some are there because they feel the question itself is something that can't be asked- you can never get a satisfactory enough definition of "God" to have the question make sense.

There's been a discussion going on a few atheist websites recently about what evidence, if any, could make an atheist believe in God- some, like PZ Myers, flatly say there isn't any, there's always a more plausible explanation for any apparent miraculous manifestation- aliens with mind-reading capabilities who are trying to deceive us by faking our ancient beliefs etc.

I'd put myself in category 6- de facto- I'm as much a disbeliever in"God" as I am in Zeus or Odin or Shiva. Should people be agnostic about those entities, too?

[GrayMouser]

All belief in God constitutes and embodies, at its heart, a worldview; it accounts for those aspects of the world of our experience that we cannot explain or understand. God provides us with an answer to the mysteries of the universe and our place in it that creates a spiritual comfort zone for us. We need to know what life is all about and what our part in it is. We need closure. And belief in a god provides that.

But for those of us who do not or cannot believe in a god, no comparable worldview exists to enable us to understand the ultimate nature of the universe and our place in it. Atheism is not a worldview and provides no understanding of the nature of the universe; it is simply a denial of the existence of God and it is essentially useless as a contribution to our understanding of the world

http://secweb.infidels.org/article823.html


Which is why I would never join an atheist society or non-believers club.
And I don't really get excited about New Atheism, mainly because I don't think religion is important enough to worry about. (It's fun to talk about, though)

[Rían]

I disagree with that last sentence, GM - I think it is a worldview. It's the WYSIWYG worldview - "what you see is what you get". It's a belief (it cannot be a anything else!) that what we see (in a simple sense) is all there is, and is behind everything. It explains the unexplained things just as much as a god does.

I take issue with the condescending blanket stereotype of the "comfort zone" thing. Yes, God is comforting in many ways, but in many other ways, he's terrifying! But he is also loving, in the best (but hardest) sense of the word.

Anyway, my blanket stereotype would be that atheism is very comforting - there's no higher judge that can see all of your thoughts, let alone your actions, and will hold you accountable for them, and when you're dead, that's it. Now that is very definitely comforting in many ways, and I can see how an atheist might want to not believe in an all-seeing, holy God because it's more comforting to not do so.