Every instance of faith represents an underlying theism. No theism, no faith, no belief.
You believe the sun will rise tomorrow, why? You don’t know that it will. You merely believe that it will. You have faith in science and “facts”. You have an underlying theism at play, without realizing it. You don’t realize what you believe in. You don’t realize the nature of your own faith. You don’t recognize the beliefs that you have within you, that you refuse to disbelieve. Can you disbelieve the sun will rise tomorrow? Can you disbelieve in gravity? Can you disbelieve in existence? Go ahead and try.
It is through the beliefs that you cannot doubt, that represent your underlying faith and theism. That is your metaphysics. That is your value system and moral judgment.
Every person has belief in things, even Joker. Just because you don’t admit to it, doesn’t mean you don’t have it. You do have it. And denying it, doesn’t change anything.
As if your respect is worth anything to begin with?
A philosopher controls his own definitions of concepts. You expose how little you know about faith and theism. I have more important students to teach, before your turn.
As I said, no theism, no faith. The core of all faith always comes from an inner theistic ideology.
Ultimately faith/hope is a response to doubt/fear. Every biological organism with an evolved neural system, a brain or mind, has a basic fear/hope response to stimuli.
Doubt represents fear (negative value judgment). Faith represents hope (positive value judgment).
That says the moderator of the subforum “Religion and Spirituality”.
Excuse me, Dan, but I can’t believ what you are saying, although or because you are also saying that you were being “sarcastic”.
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Philosophy” an anti-philosopher?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Society, Government, and Economics” an anti-social moron, an egomaniac idiot?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Science, Technology, and Math” an anti-scientist, an anti-technologist, an anti-mathematician?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Psychology and Mind” an anti-psychological moron, an mindless sociopath?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum “Religion and Spirituality” an anti-religious and anti-spiritual peacock, a foolish godwannabe?
How do you know that? Who told you that? The Nietzscheanists? The other nihilists?
I invite you to come to Europe because Europe has almost no real Christians anymore. So according to your statements Europe would have to be a paradisie. Funny, because the reverse is right. Again: Come to Europe! For example and very especially: Come to France which is almost islamic and voodoo-like, just “delicious”.
Do you believe in that, in that expectant new religion? If you really had learned from the history of religion you would have come to a different conclusion. Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe that will be a “better” religion?
Darwinistically we evolved from the apes, okay, but Anti-Darwinistically, thus culturally, we evolved from the throw(ing) (| => # || => #).
Science became a new theology long ago, even before it could try to become a new religion. Newton’s “laws” are as theological as God’s “laws” in the “good old” religious times of Christianity, and as Allah’s “laws” (you don’t believe? then ask the “Christian” French!).
Today the Christians are similar to those scientists who were persecuted by the Christians in the 15th, in the 16th, in the 17th, and in the eraly 18th century, especially from the middle or late 16th to the early 18th century when the Catholic Anti-Reformation persecuted scientists.
Right. And anti-theism is just another theism. Anti-theism always refers to theism. Interestringly, the history shows us that a-theism has always behaved like an anti-theism, thus also like another theism. Theory and theism belong together. So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.
A muslim knows that theism and theory are related, that they are very similar to each other, probably he even says that they are “the same” because his culture is one of the most religious cultures of all time.
There has never been a culture without any religion and theology. But when cultures decline religion and theology have to decline as well - this seems to be a declining “law”.
Are you sure?
Don’t think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity will be destroyed. That’s an dangerous, fatal error. And if you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why don’t you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally an Oriental form?
BenJS is right. If you are saying faith requires theism, or always occurs with theism, you are using exceptionally nonstandard definitions of faith, theism, or both. It would be like saying vision only occurs with rectangular solids.
Theism is the belief in “god(s)”. But then a “god” is merely a principle or inherent law, something that controls the outcome of events. Science is entirely about principles and inherent laws (as is mathematics). They just don’t call them “gods”, but rather “theories” (although they used to call them “laws” until they learned that being divine wasn’t as easy as they had thought).
Science IS a Theism. And today goes the full route of having ;
prophets (“Einstein”, “Newton”, “Maxwell”, “Lorentz”,…)
monks (“scientists”),
priests (“professors of science”),
evangelists (“promoters of science to the masses”),
a Vatican (“the scientific community”),
morals (“the scientific method”),
faith (“we have proven it in our deeply hidden scientific experiments, so just believe it”),
indoctrination (“thou shall teach no other theological faith in schools but ours”),
condemnation (“we have no need for your religious nonsense in our world”), and
mysticism, (“quantum physics and relativity”).
Science = Religion, today. It’s newspeak. It’s the gradual or sudden change of label of a concept. Today “science” is the new religion, the new order. But it’s exactly the same as Catholicism was 1000 years ago. Science is today, what Catholicism was 1000 years ago, no difference whatsoever, except the change of names.
Does a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?
Antitheists really irk and rub me the wrong way. Because they want to keep the morals, keep the spirituality, keep the faith, keep the laws, keep the practices and traditions, but exclude god. They don’t like the idea of “god”. So you have this huge anti cultural movement today, that tries to keep all the old institutions, but just remove god from the picture. Nietzscheans use the excuse “god is dead” to justify this desire. Then you have the “scientists” who are really catholics, minus god, again.
Who do you people think created the first “Universities”??? What do you think this term means? What is a “Professor”???
There is a lapse of historical knowledge at work here, a blissful or chosen ignorance. The new generations of eternal children, want to look at the world as if there were no “Authority” greater than themselves. This is the “humanism” movement. Christianity - God = Humanity. These children want to pretend their parents are gone, absent, or dead. But are they? Can you imagine your parents are gone? If they die, do their memories die to? Does the death of your parents, make you forget everything?
Does it erase the past? No, but that’s what these “anti theists” want. They want to erase the past, pretend that gods are dead, or pretend gods don’t exist.
It stems from a child psychology, a phase in their young lives when they wanted to escape from their own parents’ authority, or memories.
It “stems from” much more influential people wanting to change what was by destroying it with semantics and replace it with the new world odor, a bigger version of the old.
Yeah, that would be an example of an extremely nonstandard definition. But under that definition, faith doesn’t require theism- though I haven’t heard the nonstandard definition of faith yet.
Of course he was. The reason people can’t tell is because folks say what he said in the tone he said it with all sincerity here on a regular basis.
Uncommon certainly. That isn’t what people normally think of when they hear the word “god” (after thousands of years of obfuscation), and yet it is an irrefutable fact.
“…faith doesn’t require theism”??
Faith is the insistence on keeping with the theory/theism, holding to what is believed to be the principle/god/God or “proper course of action” for whatever reason one may think it is “proper”.
