Bruno Marchal wrote: 
Late James Higgo would have perhaps added that many trends in the
Buddhist traditions have much in common with Platonism and Plotinism.

Brent Meeker wrote:
Theism is the belief that the world was created by a single
omnipotent, superhuman agent who cares about human behavoir and intervenes in worldly events. 
Is that your theory?? 
Brent Meeker
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of 
building, and health is not a form of sickness. Atheism is not a 
  --- Jim Heldberg, San Francisco Atheist Coordinator 
The above quote from Heldberg would have made sense if, instead of "atheism", he used a word like "anti-religion-ism". Religion should not be equated with theism or theology. For instance Buddhism is not theistic, but it is a religion.

I do agree with you, Brent, that theism, or theology, is not a good word for Bruno's beliefs. (But I don't totally agree with your definition of theism, as it is closer to monotheism, since you included the word "single".)

Back on Bruno's beliefs, perhaps a word like spirituality would be a step in the right direction, away from theology. It is also a step away from the word "psychology". "Psychology" is often associated with trying to figure out what is wrong with the psyche, whereas "spirituality" opens it up to an exploration of the unknown.

The word religion locks into the idea of a set of beliefs about reality, even beliefs that can't be proved, but also adds a set of beliefs that certain ways of living, traditions and/or rituals are required to live life properly. Theists and atheists alike can ascribe to a religion, as I've already noted above (e.g. Buddhism). But I would say the word religion is also too specific (in that it adds the ways-of-living) to refer to Bruno's beliefs, at least at this point, if I follow him correctly.

Speaking of religion and beliefs, Bruno, I recall that Confucius said something like, "To know that we know what we know, and to know that we don't know what we don't know: that is true knowledge." If I am correct, interpreting Bp as "knowing p", could this be translated into the following two propositions?

Bp -> BBp
~Bq -> B~Bq  =  D~q -> BD~q  =  Dp -> BDp  (where p=~q)

I would say that these propositions take faith, which is in the realm of spirituality. However, I would also say that we have to hold to these propositions to stay sane, and also to do science and explore the unknown.


Reply via email to