The Problem With "General Theism"

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

I tried. You saw me. It was just too scary I guess.

Logic must be a frightening thing when you are on the receiving end and really have no clue as to what's going on.

[ghoulslime]

Rhinoqulous wrote

He won't respond to this thread. He came right out and stated he's not interested in a debate. I guess all he is interested in is endlessly creating threads on the same topic, and complaining about poo-jokes. He's a troll, plain and simple.

I'll bet he pees his pants. He just sits there at his sweaty computer chair and lets it flow because he is too busy making his pointless point to get up and hit the head.

ghoulslime wrote

Logic must be a frightening thing when you are on the receiving end and really have no clue as to what's going on.

Quote material right there. Sums my view up quite nicely.

[Choobus]

ghoulslime wrote

Logic must be a frightening thing when you are on the receiving end and really have no clue as to what's going on.

Straw Man Bullpuckey!

Same insincerity, Different Day.

You can't argue with what someone ACTUALLY writes, so you affix an involuntary label on them and then ATTRIBUTE views to them they never expressed.

Anything but actually debating a point. But how unfair would that be? Since the Raving Ones are demonstrated as slow witted, you can't expect them to do anything but deflect a discussion into their limited comfort zone.

[Kate]

[ghoulslime]

skribb wrote

Quote material right there. Sums my view up quite nicely.

Thank you, thank you very much!

[ghoulslime]

Francis wrote

Straw Man Bullpuckey!

Same insincerity, Different Day.

You can't argue with what someone ACTUALLY writes, so you affix an involuntary label on them and then ATTRIBUTE views to them they never expressed.

Anything but actually debating a point. But how unfair would that be? Since the Raving Ones are demonstrated as slow witted, you can't expect them to do anything but deflect a discussion into their limited comfort zone.

The idiot troll raises another straw fortress from which to hurl the darts and arrows of nitwit valor!

Huff and puff little pig! You cannot blow the atheist house down. It is built upon a foundation of solid truth!

There is not a single day goes by that I don’t rise and thank my good fortune for being situated upon the moral and intellectual high ground of human society!

Truth is the great reward for applying logic in one’s life view! How grand to belong to the atheist illuminati! The envy and spite of our cerebral inferiors is only testament to our superiority!

(P.S. Can anybody help Francis find his comfort zone?)

[ghoulslime]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Ever since we had our little "visit" from the "general theism" apologizers, I've been mulling the concept over in the back of my brain. Their basic premise was that the "General Theism" endorsed by Theology and Philosophy of religion was, by default, a respectable position, and one that should not be the focus of our atheistic fervor. Beyond the glaring fallacy of accepting a philosophical position as "respectable" based solely on the fact that theologians and philosophers continue to debate it, "General Theism" is at best a waste of time, and at worst a source of justification for beliefs that would otherwise seem patently absurd.

First off, what is the goal/point of this "General Theism" (GT)? Apologetics, plain and simple, though this is often veiled by the complexity of the theory. GT exists as an attempt to explain away contradictions, paradoxes, and the outright absurdities of actual religious beliefs. The contradictions of an omni-X (didn't Spider Man fight him?) God, the paradox of the God-Man, and the absurdity of transubstantiation. If you tell someone that when a man in a funny hat gives them a cracker and a shot of wine, these substances magically transform into the blood and flesh of god, even though if tested they remain just crackers and night train, that person would find you a bit loony. Tell them that the man in a funny hat is following an ancient tradition, and some bloke who hasn't spoken in 15 years sitting in a monastery wrote 15,000 words on the subject, and suddenly it seems like it might have something to it. If people are still thinking about this after thousands of years, and are writing treatises on these seemingly impossible events, there just might be something to it, right?

This is where the defender of GT will back away from actual religions, and claim GT by itself is a respectable philosophical position. This flavor of GT attempts to create scenarios where God becomes a logical possible entity. These apologizers do not seem to be bothered by the fact that with enough creativity, almost any premise can be shown to be logically possible. This is where counter-arguments such as the FSM, the Screaming Blue Ants, and the Invisible Mango Spirits of Redemption come into play. All of these beings are logically possible, but having this vague possibility gives us no actual insight into the actual world (besides reflecting the nature of how people believe).

The GT-ist could respond by saying that the logically possible God of GT is of a different sort than the logically possible made-up Gods, as the general god of GT is the historical God of humanities religions. This only takes a step backwards, as again GT becomes simple apologetics for the absurdities of religion. Instead, GT-ists insist their God is separate from the claims of actual religion, and should be understood, and respected, based solely on the theories constructed about it in the isolated void of academics.

This is the strongest of the GT-ists idea of God, the God of deism. A God whose existence is allowed by complex theory, a God to fill the ever narrowing gaps of human knowledge, and a God that can be stickied to any accepted theory for aesthetic purposes. Though there is no part of existence where this God necessarily exists, the Deist God can be crammed into morality, creation, free will and the future of mankind as it remains a logically possible theory. That belief in this God is by and large trivial does not seem to matter, as in academic philosophy and theology all that does matter is that the theory is internally consistent and for the most part unsolvable/untestable (as actually having to prove these abstract theories of metaphysics would put way too many people out of jobs).

I've probably come across (read, studied, laughed hysterically at) all the various theories of GT. None are convincing, but all contain at least one form of the argument where yes, God is a logically possible entity. Now, I'd like to present another theory that is logically possible. It is possible, however remotely, that for thousands of years theologians, philosophers and the like, have been debating, theorizing, and extensively writing about pure fantasy. It would be like traveling to the year 4000, and finding the universities with "The Department of Harry Potter Studies". Every single philosopher, every single theologian, has been debating the equivalent of star trek fan-fiction. Now, of these two logically possible situations, one being there is some entity we can call "God" that may have some type of existence (and whose existence may be beyond our capability of understanding), who isn't actually needed to explain the natural world (but fits in if worded just right), and the other being the entire field of theology/philosophy of religion/GT has been one of the hugest wastes of time in human history, which is more probable?

Seeing that my second option, that GT is at best a waste of time (being that one does not have to defer to magic explanations or appeal to entities beyond our grasp to believe my option), is clearly the better option, it seems GT looses its automatic position of respect. Is that enough, or is GT a more heinous endeavor than a simple time-sink?

Again, I return to the apologetic nature of GT. Radical and Prize contended that GT was a respectful position, and that the focus of atheistic criticisms of religion should be the actual absurdities, paradoxes and contradictions of particular religion. As fine (and unremarkable) of a position this is, the existence of GT (and the respect given to it), grant the religions making the absurd/paradoxical claims justification they would not otherwise have. When you poke holes in the particulars of religious theory, the ground that keeps the belief from collapsing is general theism.

Imagine GT as an old, cracked chimney on a house that is no longer used. Inside this chimney are a colony of bats that are flying around your house, shitting all over your stuff, and infecting your friends that pass out on the couch with rabies. Now, it isn't the chimney itself that is crapping on your stuff and scaring the shit out of you while watching a movie, just like it isn't general theism but actual religious nuts that are crapping on your stuff and infecting your friends with rabies. The chimney is what allows the bats to be shitting/spreading rabies in the first place. If you kill the bats one by one they will keep coming back, as the chimney nook allows them a safe foundation to live, breed, thrive. Knock out, close up the chimney, no more bat shit on your TV. Knock down religious arguments one by one, general theism still rests as a base for new arguments. Knock out general theism and you remove the strongest source of justification for religion.

I've been waiting for a very long time to hear a theist apologist respond to this. Is this thread doomed to set upon a dusty shelf for all eternity?

I responded to it, however it was not a verbose, flawed and convoluted response.

Flaw I -"General Theism" While atheists believe they have the intelligence and education required to label the belief systems of others, I declare they do not, and also call them on the absence of any moral authority to label someone else's beliefs.

Flaw II - The "necessary conclusion" notion. The extrapolations as to what other people "must believe" given their views, these are all nonsequiturs. They do not follow. They are not logical and do not follow any threorem neccessary to give the conclusion credence.

Flaw III - Another excuse to vent with uneducated personal insults.


Here's a concept- why not deal with a statement the person actually makes. Why not do so with composure and maturity.

[Choobus]

[Rhinoqulous]

Damnit, somebody stop me!

Francis wrote

I responded to it, however it was not a verbose, flawed and convoluted response.

You've never responded to anything. Ever.

Flaw I -"General Theism" While atheists believe they have the intelligence and education required to label the belief systems of others, I declare they do not, and also call them on the absence of any moral authority to label someone else's beliefs.

So your response to my critique of general theism is that I do not have the education nor the intelligence to critique it. On what do you base this claim?

Flaw II - The "necessary conclusion" notion. The extrapolations as to what other people "must believe" given their views, these are all nonsequiturs. They do not follow. They are not logical and do not follow any threorem neccessary to give the conclusion credence.

I said nothing about what people "must believe". One of my critiques (in another thread) of GT is precisely that, that your average theist doesn't believe (or at least hasn't heard of) the metaphysics of GT. The point I made in this thread is that GT, when examined on its own as a philosophical theory, fails to make God a necessary entity, only a logically possible one.

Flaw III - Another excuse to vent with uneducated personal insults.

Point out one uneducated or personal insult in my opening post.

Here's a concept- why not deal with a statement the person actually makes. Why not do so with composure and maturity.

I did. I addressed actual statements that radical logic and Prizefighter actually made.

[Philboid Studge]

there's an old star trek episode where an unseen alien aboard the Entrprise is stirring shit between Kirk and the Klingons. they learn that by ignoring the mischievous sprite they could sap it of its power.

similarly, there's a Simpson Halloween episode where gigantic advertising icons come to life and wreak havoc in Springfield. They defuse the situation and save the town by not paying attention to these mammoth attention-seekers.

[Waddlie]

For fuck's sake, Rhino...

[Professor Chaos]