Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ex-xian · 06-23-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Metaphysical Naturalism, a term coined by philosophers for any worldview that holds that nature is all there is. Philosophers call this a "closed" system because nothing more is needed to explain why it exists or why it is the way it is: it just is. All explanations for any phenomenon or event ultimately end up at the same place: the nature of the universe.

Ok, I see. I thought the a belief that everything that happens in the universe can be explained by natural means, which deism can uphold, would fall under MN. But, as is apparant from the quote above, it cannot.

However, what about panentheism?

Maverick · 06-23-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
However, what about panentheism?

I must admit that I had know idea what a panentheist is. I found this site with a google search.

An excerpt:

Quote:

God and Panentheism

Reality exists
The initiating force - causative factor - of reality is "God."
God is omnipresent; as such, all things are in God, including our known reality.
God is bigger than reality.
God is omnipotent; It has the power to create new, original knowledge.
God is omniscient; It knows how to create more knowledge. It cannot create new, creative, untainted knowledge within Itself.
God is omnipresent; It cannot create outside Itself.

My personal opinion is that this classification is that of a thiest, and seems not that far removed from mainstream religions. This is just a cursory appraisal though.

pz · 06-23-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-xian
However, what about panentheism?

Since we're arguing that the natural world is all there is, I would think that would conflict with the idea that the natural world is a subset of a god who encompasses and is greater than the universe.

ex-xian · 06-23-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
Since we're arguing that the natural world is all there is, I would think that would conflict with the idea that the natural world is a subset of a god who encompasses and is greater than the universe.

So you're saying that pantheists would be accepted, but panentheists wouldn't? Even though panentheists believe in a god who is not perfect, omni-max, or personal? It seems that the only significant difference between the two is that panentheists make god a little "bigger" than pantheists.

Maverick - I was unaware of all the garbage under panentheism. I'm sure that Whitehead and Hartshorn spin in their graves at some of the things passing of panentheism. The New-Age-y, people appropriated the phrase, I guess b/c it sounds new to them. I couldn't find any good web sites, but below are a few decent ones. Also, I recommend Process and Reality by Whitehead, and Philosophy of Religion by Rem Edwards.

The Other Michael · 06-23-2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AquaVita
That's open to debate. But it's surely possible to promote(from our mission statement)

the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

Theists are also capable of defending such concpets as separation of church and state, evolution, scientific pursuits etc.]

Hello AquaVita,

If we're going to discuss the IIDB/SecWeb mission, I think it may be best to discuss it as a (hopefully) coherent whole, rather than pulling out little bits and saying "what about this now?".

"The pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and tolerance" is subsumed within the primary mission of the promotion of MN, and so you need to address how theists first fit in to the promotion of MN, and then how they fit in to the rest.

At least that's the way I see it.

cheers,
Michael

AquaVita · 06-23-2003, 09:29 PM

Of course, Michael.

It's entirely possible, as I've admitted here and elsewhere, that I simply misunderstand the mission statement. I can see that the goal of the SecWeb is to defend and promote MN. I just can't see how that precludes theist moderators. I can surely understand not wanting a theist on the BOD or other such position of authority would be justified. It's just that having one help keep the forum a civil place doesn't seem like such a stretch to me.

Quote:

and so you need to address how theists first fit in to the promotion of MN, and then how they fit in to the rest.

I will concede that theists do not fit into promotion of MN. (I think we're just abbreviating that because it's so troublesome to spell, right?

) but again I just wonder how having a theist moderator would hinder said promotion.

If the theist in question were to do something that "disrupted" the promotion of MN, then I would imagine they would be conversely removed, just as any current moderator. But if a theist moderator "disrupts" the promotion of MN just by simply being a theist, why would we allow thests amongst our general user base?

This is a secular-themed message board. I just don't currently see a reason that theists cannot promote some secular or otherwise neutral themes, again such as scientific pursuits, philisophical endeavors, Separation of church and state, political issues, etc.

Toto, thanks for your reply...I will respond presently.

HelenM · 06-24-2003, 03:57 AM

It seems to me that when it comes to theist beliefs, many people here are willing to spend forever analyzing and dissecting and objecting to them.

When it comes to the 'no theist moderators' rule, some are evidently content with 'it works, why change it?' or 'it's obviously against the mission statement'.

It seems that there is a reluctance on the part of some to apply the same critical, analytical standards to the latter as to the former.

Why is that? Shouldn't critical analysis be applied just as rigorously to those rules/ideas we like, as to those we don't?

If not, then 'critical thinking' can be simply a smokescreen used to try to justify one's own irrational biases. And, imo, the 'most deluded theist' is not necessarily more deluded than the self-proclaimed 'rational, critical thinking' nontheist who is selective about which issues he/she critically thinks about.

Helen

The Other Michael · 06-24-2003, 04:45 AM

Good morning AquaVita,

My comment was not meant to necessarily argue one side or the other (the curse of being a middle of the roader is that I can often see both good and bad points on all sides, and that's pretty much what I'm finding in this discussion). I was pointing out that the "mission" is the sum of the parts, and while there may well be some value to looking at the parts individually, it isn't too difficult to pick a bit here and a bit there and come up with something that isn't really representing the actual mission statement.

Sort of the story of the blind men and the elephant, if you catch my drift.

cheers,
Michael

cheetah · 06-24-2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AquaVita

I will concede that theists do not fit into promotion of MN. (I think we're just abbreviating that because it's so troublesome to spell, right? ) but again I just wonder how having a theist moderator would hinder said promotion.

Hmmm, just being devil's advocate here, because I honestly am not able to be on one side or another, morally, yet...

Is there an important difference between doing something that does nto hinder the mission of promoting MN vs. enhancing the mission of promoting MN? I think so. I think that, in any goal or mission, we should not get too sidetracked with things that "wouldn't hurt" and really make a concerted effort to make all actions taken ones that will enhance the mission. So, if theist moderators do not enhance the mission, why do it?

Further, whether they enhance the mission is questionable. I think they do not enhance the promotion of MN part, but it might enhance other parts, as has been discussed. And, as TOM suggested, it's important to review it as a whole rather than in parts. So, as a whole, would theist moderators enhance the mission or simply not harm it?

By the way, is everyone sure we've decided that this is the best way to morally evaluate this situation? it seems like perhaps the best option, but I am still unsure about whether there may be a better way.

leonarde · 06-24-2003, 11:32 AM

To me it's NOT a question of morality: it's a question of how good you want the discussion(s) to be on a discussion board. The best ones are those in which the contents of the ideas are treated neutrally by the "referee(s)" and that is really the way I see a moderator: as a referee. Sometimes the requirements of being a good moderator(referee) will work against the mission statement goals: on one particular thread, on a particular day, on a particular topic the theist's arguments may be prevailing. So what? That's the way discussions sometimes go. Is the referee to close the thread, or use his/her position unjustly to promote the non-theist side just to guarantee that Metaphysical Naturalism is advanced ?

As I said, I see it as similar to referees: picture a professional basketball game (NBA): it's a blowout. But the NBA is there to "entertain"! Couldn't the referees 'even things a little bit' by calling fouls only against one (ie the winning) side? Sure but at the expense of the integrity of the game itself........

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2003, 03:57 AM	#207
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	It seems to me that when it comes to theist beliefs, many people here are willing to spend forever analyzing and dissecting and objecting to them. When it comes to the 'no theist moderators' rule, some are evidently content with 'it works, why change it?' or 'it's obviously against the mission statement'. It seems that there is a reluctance on the part of some to apply the same critical, analytical standards to the latter as to the former. Why is that? Shouldn't critical analysis be applied just as rigorously to those rules/ideas we like, as to those we don't? If not, then 'critical thinking' can be simply a smokescreen used to try to justify one's own irrational biases. And, imo, the 'most deluded theist' is not necessarily more deluded than the self-proclaimed 'rational, critical thinking' nontheist who is selective about which issues he/she critically thinks about. Helen

06-24-2003, 04:45 AM	#208
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Good morning AquaVita, My comment was not meant to necessarily argue one side or the other (the curse of being a middle of the roader is that I can often see both good and bad points on all sides, and that's pretty much what I'm finding in this discussion). I was pointing out that the "mission" is the sum of the parts, and while there may well be some value to looking at the parts individually, it isn't too difficult to pick a bit here and a bit there and come up with something that isn't really representing the actual mission statement. Sort of the story of the blind men and the elephant, if you catch my drift. cheers, Michael

06-24-2003, 11:32 AM	#210
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	To me it's NOT a question of morality: it's a question of how good you want the discussion(s) to be on a discussion board. The best ones are those in which the contents of the ideas are treated neutrally by the "referee(s)" and that is really the way I see a moderator: as a referee. Sometimes the requirements of being a good moderator(referee) will work against the mission statement goals: on one particular thread, on a particular day, on a particular topic the theist's arguments may be prevailing. So what? That's the way discussions sometimes go. Is the referee to close the thread, or use his/her position unjustly to promote the non-theist side just to guarantee that Metaphysical Naturalism is advanced ? As I said, I see it as similar to referees: picture a professional basketball game (NBA): it's a blowout. But the NBA is there to "entertain"! Couldn't the referees 'even things a little bit' by calling fouls only against one (ie the winning) side? Sure but at the expense of the integrity of the game itself........

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.