Are you a Theist, an Agnostic, or and Atheist?

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

Or donate directly via Paypal

This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.

[Star]

The former is an assertion that by the evidentiary standards generally applied to things of its class the existence of Gods has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the claimant and that barring new and better evidence the thing shall be accepted as fact. The other remains a claim about the (presumably demonstrable) nature of extant reality.

And as I keep saying, the existence of the Gods has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction.  It has been demonstrated to me through personal experience to the point that I accept it as quite probably true, but it has not been demonstrated to me to the point that I accept it as fact.  I cannot make the claim that "I know", because I don't see the evidence to support the statement "the Gods exist".

The point that I think I'm making is that both 'I know gods exist' and 'I know I'm happy' are both making a claim about the presumably-demonstrable nature of reality. Specific things are going on inside me versus gods exist. Both would generally be accepted as anable to be currently tested and/or demonstrated. That is, currently unknowable by the evidentiary standard applied to that which is real and demonstrable.

I think I should reiterate here something that I said in a previous message:

(I also am not certain, for the record, that I'd necessarily agree to being able to know I'm really happy.  It's not exactly something I've given a lot of thought to--but if presented with the question, "But do you really know you're happy?" I might be forced to admit that my happiness, much like my belief in the Gods, could very well be some sort of delusion.  Anything internal to myself is subject to that, really.)

Beyond that:  I'm really sorry about this, but my mind has absolutely gone AWOL on me today.  I want to disagree with you, still, but I can't seem to put together the reasons why coherently enough to express them.  I'm not totally sure the above is even coherent.  It's that kind of a day. 

I hope that continuing to tease this out isn't giving anyone the irrits.

Nah.  I'm irritated with my brain for not handing me the answers I want in nice neat words, but that's about it.

[BGMarc]

And as I keep saying, the existence of the Gods has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction.  It has been demonstrated to me through personal experience to the point that I accept it as quite probably true, but it has not been demonstrated to me to the point that I accept it as fact.  I cannot make the claim that "I know", because I don't see the evidence to support the statement "the Gods exist".

I understand that this is what you are asserting and am sorry if it appears argumentative to keep returning to it. What I am having trouble unerstanding is why you assert this in the case of deity, but not in the case of emotion. Both seem to me an instance of accepting personal experience as sufficient evidence for accepting the existence of a thing as real (either physiological states and state changes, or deity). In both cases the current state of accepted knowledge within significant communities (scientific/religious) reliably correlates that the personal experience reliably correlates with acceptence of the 'fact'. Both are subject to revision on the basis of future demonstration that the currently-acceptable evidence required to support knowledge is in fact deficient and does not support the previously-accepted conclusions.

I think I should reiterate here something that I said in a previous message:

Point taken and understood. It is a very intellectually honest position and would resolve the inconsistency that I am sensing. That said, I think that there is value in exploring the issue on the basis that emotion can be reasonably-said to be known on the basis of personal experience. That seems to me to be the more commonly accepted position and this discussion is (for me) aboutrequiring consistent evidentiary standards to epistemological claims that relate to the same class of things within extant reality.

Beyond that:  I'm really sorry about this, but my mind has absolutely gone AWOL on me today.  I want to disagree with you, still, but I can't seem to put together the reasons why coherently enough to express them.  I'm not totally sure the above is even coherent.  It's that kind of a day. 

LOL. I so know where you are coming from there. I spend whole days wondering 'where did my brain go and what's this mush on my pillow'. As far as the disagreeing goes; I want to disagree with me on a couple of points. It's just that I have trouble finding a reason to do so that is internally consistent. The only one I can find for myself is that the existence or otherwise of deity is 'more important' than the existence of the physical underpinnings of emotion; however, generally it seems that the degree of importance of the topic impacts our sensitivity to new and better evidence and aou willingness to reassess what we know, rather than changing the evidentiary standards away from those generally required of the class of things under consideration.

Nah.  I'm irritated with my brain for not handing me the answers I want in nice neat words, but that's about it.

Comforting to hear, as this is really giving my grey matter a monumental workout that it needs atm. Especially given that it's just after 7AM here

[Lykaios]

What I am having trouble unerstanding is why you assert this in the case of deity, but not in the case of emotion. Both seem to me an instance of accepting personal experience as sufficient evidence for accepting the existence of a thing as real (either physiological states and state changes, or deity).

Obviously, I'm not Star, but...

I’ll go so far as to argue that I do think it is the same in the case of emotions, because I think we are comparing apples to oranges. I don’t think how I am interpreting words like ‘know’ and ‘emotion’ matches up entirely to what you’re saying.

I think my problem in puzzling this out and explaining myself is that I stumble over the issue of “knowledge of effects” verses “knowledge of causes” and to me, ‘knowing’ something is making a statement of fact about one of those two things and I see a differentiation between how the two should be treated. In the case of ‘knowledge of effects’, the ‘fact’ is experiential and internal. In the case of ‘knowledge of causes’ the ‘fact’ is not-experiential, it’s theoretical and external.

For instance, in terms of emotion, I can make the statement that “I know I am happy.” Because I am making an “I know” statement about an effect I am presently experiencing. No additional evidence outside the experience itself is necessary to confirm the existence of the experience. However, I can’t make an “I know” statement like “I know proper balance of brain chemicals x and y causes my happiness.” I don’t actually know what makes me happy. I just know that I am.

 I don’t see any inconsistency between that and my prior statements about deity. I ‘know’ I experience something which I attribute to deity; however, I don’t know with any certainty what actually causes that experience. I can make a 100% certain statement about experiencing emotions and I can even tell you what I think is theoretically viable, based on what science I have learned in school, but I can’t make what I think about an external cause of an internal experience into a 100% certain statement about the causes of those emotional experiences because I would be claiming that my ‘theory’ about those causes is ‘knowable’ beyond any doubt, that it is a fact, and I don’t believe that to be the case.

I can’t bring myself to say a theoretical cause of an effect is an objective, external ‘fact’ just because I believe the evidence that’s been gathered. I believe the theory of evolution, for example, because I find the evidence compelling, but I would see the same intellectual dishonesty in labeling it a ‘fact’ and saying that I ‘knew’ the theory of evolution was ‘the’ explanation for observed effects as I would in claiming I ‘knew’ god existed and was ‘the’ explanation for my experiences.

I’m still not sure if I’m describing my thoughts well enough or if I’m even reading what you are saying correctly. The words won’t do what I want them to, and I’m not sure how else to arrange them to explain myself.

[treekisser]

For instance, in terms of emotion, I can make the statement that “I know I am happy.” Because I am making an “I know” statement about an effect I am presently experiencing. No additional evidence outside the experience itself is necessary to confirm the existence of the experience.

Just to add:

1a) "I am experiencing happiness."
1b) "I am experiencing intense, complex sensations (for which I use the shorthand 'deity' to describe)."

2a) "Happiness exists."
2b) "Deity exists."

I think statements 1a and 1b are broadly equivalent if you treat the deity's name as referring to the emotional experience rather than a specific entity. Both pairs of statements are, I think, making different knowledge claims. I'm happy to go 100% along with the first pair, a bit pickier about the second. Also, statement 1b tends to be used to infer 2b.

[Star]

Obviously, I'm not Star, but...

...but for the moment you're quite welcome to play her in the televised movie-of-the-week based on this conversation, at least. 

I don't know if what you've said is exactly where I was going with my own thoughts, but I'm definitely sitting here nodding my head in agreement.  I think it's at least in the general direction I was headed.

I’m still not sure if I’m describing my thoughts well enough or if I’m even reading what you are saying correctly. The words won’t do what I want them to, and I’m not sure how else to arrange them to explain myself.

You're doing a better job than I am.   

[Star]

1b) "I am experiencing intense, complex sensations (for which I use the shorthand 'deity' to describe)."

I think I'd modify this one to "interacting with deity" rather than "deity" by itself, since I believe the Gods are entities rather than representations and referring to them as shorthand for sensations I'm experiencing makes me a little squicky.  Other than that, though, I agree with what you've said here too.  I think.  My brain's still a little mooshy.   

[INsearch]

This Theist-Atheist scale was created by Richard Dawkins and seems mainly for monotheist belief. I've modified the descriptions a bit to make it more polytheism-friendly.

I am technically Agnostic but leaning towards atheism.

[RandallS]

Side Note: I've removed your broken SIG image since you haven't yet replaced it.

[Jenny Dare]

I understand that this is what you are asserting and am sorry if it appears argumentative to keep returning to it. What I am having trouble unerstanding is why you assert this in the case of deity, but not in the case of emotion. Both seem to me an instance of accepting personal experience as sufficient evidence for accepting the existence of a thing as real (either physiological states and state changes, or deity). In both cases the current state of accepted knowledge within significant communities (scientific/religious) reliably correlates that the personal experience reliably correlates with acceptence of the 'fact'.

Do you think the last sentence here could have been part of the cause of your mutual misunderstanding? It seems to imply that you are comfortable holding the concepts of emotional experience and deity perception to the disparate standards of what you consider their relevant investigational entities (science and religion, respectively). Star, on the other hand, appears to be applying a more "scientific" approach to both concepts, which implies a different set of assumptions and requirements.

Or I could be reading the whole thing inaccurately, as this was a rather intricately developed exchange for people who claim that their brains weren't fully engaged. ^_^

[BGMarc]

Do you think the last sentence here could have been part of the cause of your mutual misunderstanding? It seems to imply that you are comfortable holding the concepts of emotional experience and deity perception to the disparate standards of what you consider their relevant investigational entities (science and religion, respectively). Star, on the other hand, appears to be applying a more "scientific" approach to both concepts, which implies a different set of assumptions and requirements.

First thing I would do is correct my original to say

In both cases the current state of accepted knowledge within significant communities (scientific/religious) reliably correlates report that the personal experience reliably correlates with acceptence of the 'fact'.

What I was trying to get at is that the people who supposedly know what they're talking about in each area should be the accepted authority in that area and should get to define the evidenciary requirements for their area. Alternatively, there needs to be an 'objective' standard that is equal for both, and for all other such cases. I do not see tht the scientific standard is the natural choice in the matter.

[Jenny Dare]

This Theist-Atheist scale was created by Richard Dawkins and seems mainly for monotheist belief. I've modified the descriptions a bit to make it more polytheism-friendly.

As to myself, somewhat to my own embarrassment I have to go with totally impartial agnostic.

Objectively, so far as I can tell, scientific evidence has failed to prove the impossibility of deity, either personal or pantheistic, and religious evidence has equally failed to confirm its existence beyond debate. So, no help there.

Subjectively, well. . .can't say there's much help there, either. I found it interesting to read the posts of so many people with such a clearly defined view of deity. For me, there's a, well, complicated something that seems to live just under the surface of my mind and just behind physical reality, whatever that may be. Some days that complicated something seems very differentiated and personified, and I feel comfortable approaching it as a god and goddess. Other days it feels completely impersonal, and my view of it is as an atheistic universal energy matrix of sorts.

The odd thing is, I've never felt the need to question either of these perceptions. "Deity" simply is what it is, when it is, and I've never felt obligated to hold it to any sort of internal consistency. After all, whatever your view of deity, from omnipotent personality to human-created archetype, it's by definition conceptually vast. And I am a human mind, whatever that is, running on the limited carbon-matrix of a human brain. Ergo, who am I to judge?

[Jenny Dare]

What I was trying to get at is that the people who supposedly know what they're talking about in each area should be the accepted authority in that area and should get to define the evidenciary requirements for their area. Alternatively, there needs to be an 'objective' standard that is equal for both, and for all other such cases. I do not see tht the scientific standard is the natural choice in the matter.

Right. So, that first sentence is what I thought I said that I thought you said. ^_^;

As to the rest, Star and some of the others do seem to be applying the scientific standard as the natural universal approach. Again, that's just the perception of this particular third-party observer.

What would you consider a more natural approach to an equal, objective standard?

[Nyktipolos]

The odd thing is, I've never felt the need to question either of these perceptions. "Deity" simply is what it is, when it is, and I've never felt obligated to hold it to any sort of internal consistency. After all, whatever your view of deity, from omnipotent personality to human-created archetype, it's by definition conceptually vast. And I am a human mind, whatever that is, running on the limited carbon-matrix of a human brain. Ergo, who am I to judge?

This is pretty much how I view deity, in much better words than what I could summon up. Although I do take a bit of a step further, and go along the lines of "deity exists, sometimes its pretty rad to give them thanks for it". I don't debate philosophy and the history of religions and why did certain things happen because in the end, it happened and that's the way it is now. There is knowledge to be gleaned from the past, most certainly, its just for me I don't feel like I'm missing out if I choose not to delve into the boiling pot that is researching and debating history and philosophy (also, I know these are not the same, but it seems whenever I get into both they both come up one way or another).

[BGMarc]

Ergo, who am I to judge?

Funnily enough, this seems to be at the heart of many of the issues that have come up across a range of threads. Is the nature of deity knowable? No wonder we have trouble with the rules for qualifying as demonstrable.

[Yez]

I've modified the descriptions a bit to make it more polytheism-friendly.

I chose none of the above!

I don't believe in anthropomorphic deities, but I'm intuitively sure that there is infinite knowledge, love and creativity.  It's in each of us, and as we seek externally, we move farther from it ;>

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- About The Cauldron ----------------------------- => Rules and Regulations => Cauldron Announcements ===> Volunteers Needed: Site Assistants and Projects => Introductions => Board Questions, Suggestions, and Feedback => Chat and CauldronMUX Support => Test Board ----------------------------- Religion and Philosophy ----------------------------- => Paganism For Beginners => Books and Other Resources => Pagan Religions => Pagan Spirituality => Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology => Worship and Ritual => Holidays and Festivals => History and Religion => Faith in Everyday Life => Philosophy and Metaphysics => Non-Pagan Religions and Interfaith Discussions => Miscellaneous Religious Discussions ----------------------------- Magic and the Occult ----------------------------- => Magic and the Occult for Beginners => Witchcraft, Hoodoo, and Folk Magic => The Western Magical Tradition => Chaos Magic => Lodges and Other Magic Organizations => Miscellaneous Magical Discussions ----------------------------- Special Interest Groups & Special Discussions ----------------------------- => Special Topic Discussions => Chavi Memorial Chronic Illness SIG => General SIGS ===> College Pagans SIG ===> Cooking SIG ===> Divination SIG ===> Home and Garden SIG ===> Pagan Parents SIG ===> Teen Pagans SIG => Religious SIGS ===> Asatru and Heathenry SIG ===> Cauldron Cill ===> FlameKeeping SIG ===> Hazel and Oak: A Celtic Polytheism SIG ===> Neo-Druidry SIG ===> Reformed Kemeticism SIG ===> Ta Hiera Hellenic Polytheism SIG => Book/Media Discussion Boards ===> Academic Book Discussions ===> Pagan Religion Book Discussions ===> Magick Book Discussions ===> Fiction Book Discussions ===> DVD/Video Discussions ----------------------------- Life, the Universe, and Everything Else ----------------------------- => Pagan Announcements => Prayer and Energy Requests => News and Politics ===> Religious News ===> Non-Religious News ===> Political Discussions => Social Discussion Boards ===> Art, Poetry and Writing ===> Books ===> Computers and the Internet ===> Crafts and Hobbies ===> Family Life ===> Gaming ===> Health and Medicine ===> Humor and Quizzes ===> Music, Television, and Film ===> Pets ===> Science and Technology ===> Sports and Recreation