I am a theist

Originally posted by Agerg
I need (and will) only suggest one encumbrance: inefficiency
You could do just fine and dandy without the idea of god; adding it merely complicates things (however small this complication is it has greater than zero weight)

Sure, but I don’t see that John W. has made the kind of epistemic claim to which Ockham’s razor applies. I’ve added my own “gestaltic” thoughts to his (see lat post on the preceding page), and I don’t see how his “sense” is any less valid, or less efficient, that one’s sense of the implicate ground that frames any of our explicate perceptions, indeed our ability to perceive.

He has also not committed to any particular metaphysical conception of what he calls “god”; but suppose that he did—and suppose that he committed (perhaps just as an expanded “sense” of how things are) to a nondualistic conception that does not fit with the normal “western” theologies, but does fit with how the word “god” is understood in other systems (Advaita Vedanta, for example, or a Stoic pantheism—or Spinoza?). I personally think that such a conception can be presented in a logically consistent way, that does not necessarily violate any efficiency criteria. Again, he does not make such a commitment; I am only using it as an illustration.

In sum, I think his “sense” is perfectly “sensible” (pun intended), as it stands. And I don’t see that he’s arguing anything more than that.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think (contra my old friends twhitehead and Agerg?) that “intuition” (if I can use that word for having such “a sense” of something) is valid.

In this thread at least, I have tried not to claim otherwise. My main point is that if intuition is valid for him, then it should be equally valid for the Christians that he readily criticized for having more elaborate beliefs than his.
Presumably observation and reason trump intuition or at least cause good reason for concern. Many famous scientists have struggled with a conflict between their intuition and their observations.
But John appeared to be saying that his belief is valid intuition and most other theist belief is fabricated nonsense. I am just not convinced that he has any way of proving that their beliefs are fabricated without first assuming that observation and reason trump intuition and then showing that his observation and reason disproves their beliefs. If I then counter that with the claim that my observation and reason disproves his beliefs, will he stick with his intuition?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But John appeared to be saying that his belief is valid intuition and most other theist belief is fabricated nonsense.

All along I have been claiming that their actions are nonsense. Their actions stem from their beliefs and I see these actions as nonsense. I have cited many of them - eating God's child, for instance. On the other hand, no actions stem from my single belief and I make no claims about its validity. Which of my actions do you feel are nonsense? How is my single belief plus no related action "no different" from their myriad beliefs and elaborate related actions?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am just not convinced that he has any way of proving that their beliefs are fabricated without first assuming that observation and reason trump intuition and then showing that his observation and reason disproves their beliefs.

I have looked at the details of these other belief systems and I have found absolutely no reason to join with them and believe in their metaphysical superstition, their manipulative literature and their rules, regualtions and ceremonies. They have to make the case to me, surely? It can't be that I must believe their speculation unless I can specifically use my observation and reason disproves their intricate beliefs, can it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My main point is that if intuition is valid for him, then it should be equally valid for the Christians that he readily criticized for having more elaborate beliefs than his.

I'm not sure why you are saying I have been criticizing specifically Christians. I have not singled them out. I have deliberately done so, throughout the thread, mentioning vishvahetu and robbie carrobie (indeed, asking what is the practical difference between their vreeds), and also customs and superstitions that apply to Muslims and Jews and other theologies and dogmas too.

Originally posted by John W Booth
All along I have been claiming that their actions are nonsense. Their actions stem from their beliefs and I see these actions as nonsense. I have cited many of them - eating God's child, for instance. On the other hand, no actions stem from my single belief and I make no claims about its validity. Which of my actions do you feel are nonsense? How is my ...[text shortened]... lus no related action "no different" from their myriad beliefs and elaborate related actions?

If you believe something, you act upon it (if required by that belief). I really cant see how the fact that your belief requires no actions somehow makes it more valid or reasonable.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I have looked at the details of these other belief systems and I have found absolutely no reason to join with them and believe in their metaphysical superstition, their manipulative literature and their rules, regualtions and ceremonies. They have to make the case to me, surely? It can't be that I must believe their speculation unless I can specifically use my observation and reason disproves their intricate beliefs, can it?

Suppose they came by their beliefs by intuition. You came by yours by intuition.
Nobody is asking you to believe them without reason, but that does not mean their beliefs are any less valid than yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you believe something, you act upon it (if required by that belief). I really cant see how the fact that your belief requires no actions somehow makes it more valid or reasonable.

Seeing as I am not trying to change anyone else's belief, why is the validity of my belief important? I don't indulge in any actions based on my belief, so there's no 'validity' question about my behaviour. Surely I can express my inability to accept that others' strange and fanciful actions are valid?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you believe something, you act upon it (if required by that belief).

Not so. I believe something but I do not act upon it.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I'm not sure why you are saying I have been criticizing specifically Christians. I have not singled them out. I have deliberately done so, throughout the thread, mentioning vishvahetu and robbie carrobie (indeed, asking what is the practical difference between their vreeds), and also customs and superstitions that apply to Muslims and Jews and other theologies and dogmas too.

I did not mean to imply that you singled out Christians specifically. My apologies is thats how it came across.

Throughout this thread you seem to be saying:
"I have a belief that I came by through intuition. My belief is so insignificant to me that it is OK. Everyone else who has a belief that they came by through intuition is mistaken (or worse) because their beliefs are more elaborate, they act on their beliefs, and those beliefs result in undesirable behavior."

I am just not convinced that the reasons given shed any light on the validity of beliefs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nobody is asking you to believe them without reason, but that does not mean their beliefs are any less valid than yours.

So you are saying that someone who believes that sherry and wafers are the body of God's child has a belief that is just as valid as your belief and mine, I assume, which is that sherry and wafers are not the body of God's child?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Throughout this thread you seem to be saying:
"I have a belief that I came by through intuition. My belief is so insignificant to me that it is OK. Everyone else who has a belief that they came by through intuition is mistaken (or worse) because their beliefs are more elaborate, they act on their beliefs, and those beliefs result in undesirable behavior."

I have examined these other beliefs and I have found no reason to accept their exorhations to certain elaborate actions and behaviours. They claim that "God" has issued them with detailed instructions. You don't believe that "God" did this. And neither do I. So I think we are in agreement about the speculations of religious people, right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am just not convinced that the reasons given shed any light on the validity of beliefs.

So, let me try to summarize - you can correct me if I am wrong or unfair.

I have a wholly passive belief, a 'sense', which does not affect my actions and does not form the basis of a 'theology'. I haven't even tried to describe the nature of this 'sense' nor the nature of the subject of the 'sense'.

And this isolated instance of what you say is invalid irrationality, disqualifies me from (or invalidates my opinions related to) commenting on the inexplicability and irrationality of religious dogma and practise?

Is this what your saying?

Originally posted by John W Booth
So you are saying that someone who believes that sherry and wafers are the body of God's child has a belief that is just as valid as your belief and mine, I assume, which is that sherry and wafers are not the body of God's child?

Yes, it is just as valid as your belief.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I have examined these other beliefs and I have found no reason to accept their exorhations to certain elaborate actions and behaviours. They claim that "God" has issued them with detailed instructions. You don't believe that "God" did this. And neither do I. So I think we are in agreement about the speculations of religious people, right?

Yes we are in agreement about religious people. But in addition, I have examined your belief and found no reason to accept it either.