Deism in the Dock

On a tangent:Seconding PaulK, who questions NJ's assertion that religions 'have to' claim exclusivity. Paul did a concise, effective job, so I'll just add a little graffiti. To a large extent any major world religion is a complex of religions that have grown together. Absolutely true.Most people in my part of the world might be said to practice at least four 'religions' at once: Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and ancestor worship. If you ask their religion, though, most will just say 'Buddhist.' Few consider Confucianism a religion (though it does have temples where prayer is offered) or ancestor worship truly 'worship.' Taoism comes in a religious (Tao chou) and a non-religious (Tai chia) form.Besides the mix-and-match, you find different combinations. It's still possible to be a Buddhist or a Taoist (hi!) without being much else. You also meet plenty of agnostics and atheists, many of whom visit temples and pray with their families anyway.You often see more than one belief represented in a family. It is common for a predominantly Buddhist family to have some Christian and agnostic members and for predominantly Christian families to have some Buddhist and atheist members.Buddhist temples here have shrines to Taoist deities and ancestors as well as boddhisattvas; Buddhist temples in Thailand often have shrines to Hindu deities as well.All this goes to show that exclusivity is not necessarily a characteristic of religion generally. It is certainly not a case of 'have to.'It is closer to the mark to say exclusivity is characteristic of Judaism and its historical offspring (Christianity, Islam).___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.How conclusive it is depends on the thoroughness of the search.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : elaboration.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

...like western religions... Totally different views like... what? Like this?

God is one. God is three.

Contradictory views. One or both must be incorrect. Both can. Much depends on what one understands by deity.

God is one. God is three.

All in the definition, you see.

God is one. God is three. God is ten thousand.

Works the same way, really. It's not 'accepting and tolerating.' It's holding more than one idea in your head at the same time--even when the propositions, understood in concrete terms, appear contradictory.You should know how this works. Christians have been having it both ways for centuries.

God is one. God is three.

​

People are good. People are evil.

​

God is knowable. God is not knowable.

​

Faith is rational. Faith is not rational.

Mutually exclusive propositions all. For some reason, though, they don't get mutually excluded.If Christians can do it, other people can do it. And they do. Why should this surprise you?There is no 'fact of exclusivity' in religious ideas. It's bare assertion.There can be attitudes of exclusivity among religious people. But that's a different thing.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I can imagine that I am wrong. Hi.One should have a healthy fantasy life.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

1.Everybody Does It My point was that all religions borrow. I only spoke of 'western religions' because you spoke of 'eastern religions.' It's the terminology you were using.If you don't like it, try more often to call respective religious traditions by their names--Shinto, Mahayana Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, religious Taoism, philosophical Taoism. Exercise the same care you would if you thought Christianity and shamanism might be needlessly confused with each other.Back to the point. All religions borrow.You accommodate borrowings and compromises all the time. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism. Take away the borrowings and you've pretty much gutted the fish.2. The Commutative Properties of One and ThreeI mentioned two seemingly contradictory propositions:

God is one. God is three.

You responded: Note that in presenting the propositions God is one/God is three I mentioned neither the Trinity nor Christianity.If the Trinity doctrine is nothing like that, why did you think of it?Thank you for illustrating my point. People find ways to accommodate seemingly contradictory propositions if they find both meaningful. Christians are no exception. Not necessarily. As I said, much depends on what one understands by god (deity).By some definitions, both statements can be true.It works much as you just showed us, with your 'three equals one' thing.Speaking of which, you ignored the example I provided at this stage:

God is one. God is three. God is ten thousand.

Anyone who can reconcile the first two statements can accommodate the third.You ignored this. It's a shame, really, because after reconciling one with three it should pose no trouble for you to rationalize 'ten thousand' if you wanted. It's just a matter of multiplying the plural nature of God after that. Instead of talking about H2O and three-dimensionality, you could talk about stars and galaxies or component parts in a motherboard or something.3. Networks of IdeasIn religious propositions people often hold more than one idea in their heads at the same time--even when the propositions, understood in concrete terms, appear contradictory.(I submit that for any belief system to become a major world religion, this has to be done.) Sure. People do all kinds of things.As you have shown us. You went so far as to provide rationales for human beings being both good and evil and God being both knowable and unknowable. Seemingly contradictory propositions, again, that people find ways to reconcile. Equivocation. Your 'fact of exclusivity' did not refer simply to a property of language, as you seem to say here. You used it to assert a property of religion whereby it is not possible for people rationally to accommodate multiple beliefs, including seemingly contradictory ideas, within a single belief system. Go back and look.It is indeed possible. People do it every day. You do it every day.This 'fact of exclusivity' does not exist in the real world.Attitudes of exclusivity do. But that's a different thing.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Are you saying a religious proposition has to be exclusively applied to be worth even mentioning? It appears you are. Wow.OK. Buckle up.

The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a pearl.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a lost coin.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a thief in the night.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like a sower sowing seed.

​

The kingdom of heaven is like yeast.

​

Mutually exclusive propositions all. Otherwise, why mention any of them?So which one is right?No fair trying to have them all. 'A house divided against itself.' You know.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : htmlEdited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

How does 'extension' negate the idea of 'borrowing'?Christians incorporated over thirty books from Judaism into their canon. You want to think of those books as 'extended' instead of 'borrowed'?Well, OK.You may as well know that many people around the world view religious ideas as extensions of each other. Not always in a chronological/historical sense, but in the most important elements. The ideas extend each other.That's it, really. You can understand others, if you want to.You view Judaism as valid (much as an orthodox Jew would) but leaving more to be said (much as an orthodox Jew wouldn't). You view Christianity as filling in the picture more completely. Other people do the same. They see this or that belief system having some insight to offer, and this or that other religion filling in some area of the picture a bit better. Fallacy of Catastrophic Threat: I win, or the world descends into chaos.The catastrophe doesn't happen. Where I live, millions of happy polytheists drive to work, get married, raise children, operate computer programs, eat stinky tofu, and keep their streets more free of crime than in any metropolis you've probably ever lived in--without caring one whit whether you think they butcher their language you never learned.You are overlooking something important about the way religious language,in every tongue, works. You can catch it yourself, I think. It would be better for the discussion if you did.You got a hint from Straggler... Not at all. I just laid out the propositions. If a fallacy exists, it's your own.Don't you say God is singular--and three?If that's a fallacy, so be it. The same holds true of a singular God equalling any other number.If it makes sense, it makes sense. The same holds true, again, with any other number.I'm not taking a side. I don't have a god in this fight. (haha) I'm just showing you how these things are done.They're done the way you already do them. On the contrary. I set down distinct, concise propositions: God is knowable / God is unknowable. The terms were simple.You immediately started explaining things so that you could make a place for both seeming contradictory propositions. Are you 'conflating things and muddling terms'? Having it both ways? Well, some might view it that way. You're certainly making matters more complex.But that's the point. All religions do this. Yours and everyone else's.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Insight.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I wasn't thinking of myself. Rilke, actually.

You are so young, so much before all beginning. I beg you, Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart. Try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very exotic language. Don't search for the answers. They would not be given to you now, because you are not yet able to live them. The point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

​

Rainer Maria Rilke
Letters to a Young Poet

____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : provided quote.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Not at all. It was you, my socially-challenged amphibian friend, who concerned yourself with the source of the congratulatory activity. I merely corrected you on detail.Herr Rilke raises an interesting question--one I notice you have not addressed. Surely, being so good with answers, you can tell us.How does one know the difference between a truly unanswerable question and a question that has no immediate answer?Rilke accepts that sometimes we can't, and counsels patience. He suggests that we value the question, live and gather experience, and pay attention. One day we may live into the answer. Answers happen to those who value questions.You have not acknowledged this difficulty, much less offered your own solution for it. Neither have you shown Rilke to be wrong. You merely rejected his advice on the basis of your own lack of patience.It is clear that you are not really a fan of answers, as you say.You merely like the fast answer. The hasty answer. The all-destination, no-journey, I-can't-wait answer.But take heed, little tadpole. It does you little good to avoid wankery only to commit yourself to a life of premature ejaculation.____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

No doubt. But does that exhaust the possibilities?Isn't it possible that other reasons could exist for why things sometimes sound this way?Elements that remain to be factored into your equation?No need to answer right away...___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Deism? Gee, I don't know. I'm still pondering that bumper sticker I saw in the States:

What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?

I'm sympathetic to our colleague who said Deism hasn't really been brought into focus here. I was thinking of requesting a new thread. Something along the lines of Deism: A Primer, where people like RAZD can explain it and people like me can ask questions.When I think of Deism I think of the eighteenth-century Ben Franklin brand. But it seems to have taken a turn at Albuquerque on its way here.How's your head since your rant, by the way?.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I was hoping you were in the neighbourhood, anglagard. Thank you for an informative and gracefully written post.Do I understand correctly then that the word Deism, in your view, can properly be applied to all four of these directions?____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

​

Blessed are the premature ejaculators, for they shall not waste time.

​

Blessed are the suicides, for they shall cut to the chase.

​

-- Crashfrog 3.16

Blessed are they who jump to conclusions, for they shall never lack for certainty.

​

-- Crashfrog 3.17