--- In [email protected], "compost1uk" <compost...@...> wrote: > > Amen to quite a lot of that. For my part I suppose > I am some sort of "religious agnostic". (Unlike a proper > agnostic. Which is a bit like one of those screwed-up, > fish-eating "vegetarians" I guess, of which I am also one). > > I can see that "certainty", and doctrinal rigidity set you off. > Me too - but funnily enough it's militant atheism, and what I > see as a naive faith in scientific progressivism that pushes my > buttons. A bit of an odd foible, but there it is.
I think militant athiests (of which I am not one) get a bad press these days. Everyone seems to knock Richard Dawkins because he has pointed out that human concepts of god have been hopelessly outclassed by scientific progression and where would we be without it? Sitting in caves and worrying about the next solar eclipse is my guess. (Or sitting in TM centres and worrying about it as the case actually is). I think you have to drop ideas when they've outlived their usefulness and science has proved devastating in uncovering natural laws. My particular foible is guys like John Hagelin filling the gaps in understanding with unnecessary and purely money-making "spiritual" nonsense for no reason I can fathom other than him not getting kicked out of the TMO. Why replace a mystery with a bigger mystery? > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Finally, an interesting thread. :-) > > > > I'm going to start it by moving the two definitions > > being discussed up from the bottom: > > > > > > > Naturalism:- The system of thought holding that all > > > > > phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes > > > > > and laws. > > > > > > > > > > Materialism:- The theory that physical matter is the > > > > > only reality and that everything, including thought, > > > > > feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms > > > > > of matter and physical phenomena. > > > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <richardhughes103@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "compost1uk" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" > > > > > Sounds like someone is holding out for a supernatural > > > > > solution to the mystery. > > > > > > > > No, not at all! Only if you equate naturalism with materialism. > > > > Stenger appears to do just that, but you have yourself helpfully > > > > provided definitions (below) which show how these two 'isms' are > > > > logically distinct. > > > > I'm going to have to agree with compost1uk here. > > As stated above, I feel an affinity to "naturalism" > > that I do not for "materialism." I have no reason > > to believe that the universe is composed entirely > > of physical matter, and plenty of subjective > > reasons to not believe that. > > > > > > Materialism would seem to be under some threat from modern > > > > physics (e.g. the peculiarity of action-at-a-distance with > > > > quantum entanglement). > > > > Not to mention the transitions from matter to energy > > and back again that seem to be clearly possible in > > physics. If we were to believe the rather absolutist > > definition of "materialism" above, are to conclude > > that its author believes that all energy is matter? > > > > That said, I remain non-theist in that I perceive no > > need to postulate a God to explain any phenomenon in > > the universe. And using Occam's Razor as a guideline, > > if postulating such a God would complicate something > > simple, it is less likely that the complicated version > > is correct. > > > > I am *open* to the idea that there might be a God and > > do not find that idea in any way threatening. It's > > just that I have no need for such an idea. It neither > > comforts nor frightens me. > > > > Why I sometimes poke fun at theists is that many of > > them, including a few on this forum, seem to believe > > in God for the latter reason -- they're *afraid* of > > Him/Her/It. They seem to be, and in fact state that > > they are, afraid that He/She/It will do Bad Things > > to them if they don't follow His/Her/Its "rules," > > which they know because they were written down in > > books written by or dictated by Him/Her/It. And they > > know *this* because someone *told* them that these > > books were written by or dictated by Him/Her/It or > > cognized by someone whose spiritual Facebook page > > had been "friended" by Him/Her/It. > > > > I'm sorry, but that strikes me as rank superstition. > > > > I have no problem with the believers in God who have > > a more positive relationship with what they think of > > as God. I enjoy the books by G.K. Chesterton and > > other theists whose approach seems to be one of wonder > > and appreciation for what they consider God. I do not > > see that as that much different than my sense of > > appreciation and wonder at Wonder itself. > > > > Unlike them, however, I stop short of calling my sense > > of Wonder "God," or anything else. I don't know, and > > am comfortable with not knowing. I am content with > > just wondering about Wonder. > > > > As mentioned in the original article, I am comfortable > > with spiritual approaches that, like me, have no need > > to postulate a God or any supernatural entity "running > > things," or even with a "plan" for How Things Should > > Be Run. I find no more comfort in the notion of "God's > > Plan" than I do in the notion of the universe as pure > > Chaos. Less, in fact...if there is a God running things, > > one look around and at the Nightly News should clue us > > in to the fact that He/She/It is a total fuckup. > > >
