Bob K

The fundamental question concerning religion: Do gods exist?

1. Normal people, defined as nonscholars, have a tendency to define theist, atheist, and agnostic as I have defined them.

The focus is upon proof of either the existence or the nonexistence of gods for answers to the fundamental question concerning religion: Do gods exist?

Nonscholars regard theists to claim they have proof of the existence of gods, but their proof has not been proven to be conclusive, particularly, no gods have been captured and tortured until they confessed they are gods and then forced to perform feats which could only be done by beings with superior knowledge and capabilities than man individually or collectively.

Nonscholars regard atheists to claim they have proof of the nonexistence of gods, mostly logical arguments concerning what the gods are not, as in the gods are not at the same time omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but their proof has not been proven to be conclusive, for example, if the omni-everything god concept is downgraded to a lesser god concept, in which a god may not be omniscient and omnibenevolent and perhaps not omnipotent but is nevertheless more knowledgeable and more powerful than man individually or collectively and ready, willing and able to kick serious ass if crossed and pissed, such a god may exist.

Nonscholars regard agnostics to claim that they have determined that neither the claims of theists nor atheists are conclusive and that, therefore, there is no reason to try to answer the fundamental question concerning religion, Do gods exist?, until conclusive proof is discovered/determined, no reason to take either the theistic or atheistic position, and, therefore, no knowledge available, the only reasonable position to take is to suspend judgment and decision-making until conclusive proof is available.

Concerning belief, there are three possibilities herein: (A) [Theism] The belief that gods exist; (B) [Atheism] The belief that gods do not exist: (C) [Agnosticism] The belief that there is no conclusive proof of either the existence or the nonexistence of gods and that the fundamental question concerning religion, Do gods exist?, cannot be answered at the present time.

Atheists are fond of saying that they have no belief in the existence of gods, as if to say that where theism is the presence of belief in the existence of gods atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, and as if to say they have no belief in the nonexistence of gods, but the fact is that nonscholars have assigned the definition of a person with a belief in the nonexistence of gods to atheists, and this is logical, because of the fact that some people do exist who have a belief in the nonexistence of gods and those people ought to be given a label in accord with the theory that concerning the fundamental question concerning religion, Do gods exist?, there are some people, to be called atheists, who have a Type 2 belief in the nonexistence of gods.

Atheists are fond of accusing agnostics of being chickenshit atheists more interested in keeping open their options and looking good to theists and the media than in being honest with themselves and with other people, but the fact is that there are some people who have a Type 3 belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods who are to be called agnostics, therefore, instead of being chickenshit atheists afraid of revealing their belief in the nonexistence of gods and therefore being labeled atheists, agnostics turn out to be the most rational of the three belief Types, and the most secure, since they are not afraid of dealing with unanswered questions, questions for which conclusive proof is not available, such as Do gods exist?, by accepting the fact that conclusive proof is not currently available and that, therefore, the question is unanswered at this time, not necessarily unanswerable, for the gods, if they exist, could always show up and prove they are gods, but, nevertheless, unanswered at this time.

I am therefore championing the definitions of theist/atheist/agnostic in accord with the definitions held by nonscholars, because those vernacular definitions make sense in accord with the theory that concerning belief concerning answering the fundamental question concerning religion, Do gods exist?, there are three Types of possibilities for beliefs: (A) That gods exist; (B) That gods do not exist; (C) That there is no conclusive proof gods exist or do not exist, and that people ought to be identified and labeled according to their actual beliefs, not the beliefs they are accused of having/not having.

Bob K

Fr. Andrew:

2. I have defined the universe to be comprised of three realities: (1) Space, the spatial reality, the unbounded area/arena/location/place/stage/theatre/volume/etc. in which exist time and all things/events comprised of matter energy; (2) Time, the temporal reality, which is the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events; (3) Physics, the physical reality, the matter/energy which comprises all things/events, including people.

Space is infinite in volume and in duration in time; time is infinite in the measurement of time-intervals and therefore the measurement of time; physics is infinite in the duration of matter/energy [The First Law of Thermodynamics: The conservation of energy, the indestructibility of matter/energy, and the conversion of matter into energy and vice versa, by E = mc2 and m = E/c2] but finite in the quantity of matter/energy [The First Law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system, defined as a system from which energy cannot be exported to another energy system and to which energy cannot be imported from another energy system, the sum total of matter/energy is a constant, and space being a system from which energy cannot be exported to another energy system and into which energy cannot be imported from another energy system, the sum total of matter/energy present in space and in time is a constant, a finite number].

Space would be a pure vacuum except for the presence of physics, of matter/energy.

Time can be measured from a starting timepoint, T0, to a backwards infinity into the past and to a forwards infinity in the future:

Past Infinity <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> Future Infinity

Matter/energy, physics, is the source of causality, cause-and-effect, things/events as causes causing/creating things/events as effects. There was no first cause, and there will never be a final effect, because of the infinite duration in time of matter/energy, proven by the observed indestructibility of matter/energy as described and predicted by the conversion formulas E = mc2 and m = E/c2. Matter/energy being infinite in duration, there never was a beginning to the universe, never was a something coming from nothing, but there will always be causality and, therefore, a something coming from another something, and there will never be an ending to the universe. Thus, physics, matter/energy infinite in duration, is the source of all causality.

Without a need for the universe to have been created, because of the infinite duration of matter/energy, gods are not needed to have created the universe, nor is there any need for a spiritual dimension/aspect for the universe.

If the gods exist, they are not space, nor are they time, but, instead, are physics, comprised of matter/energy, probably more knowledgeable and more powerful/capable than man individually or collectively, and possibly capable of reorganizing matter/energy into the universe as we now know it, but, nevertheless, not comprised of some spiritual essence.

With the definition of the universe as comprised of the three realities, we now have an understanding of what would be proof of the existence of gods: the physical appearance of the gods and their performance of actions/tricks/miracles that demonstrate that they have superior knowledge and capabilities to man individually or collectively.

Thus, a possible spiritual reality is eliminated, and, therefore, a necessity for possible spiritual proof of the existence of gods has been eliminated.

This refutation of a spiritual reality is a refutation of claims of theists that gods are spiritual in nature and therefore cannot be observed using physical means of perception/observation. Theists are fond of claiming that the gods are unobserved unobservables because of their spiritual nature, but because there is no proof nor need of a spiritual reality, the spiritual nature of the gods is denied and therefore spirituality as proof of the existence of gods is denied.

The gods could still exist in the physical reality, as forms of matter/energy, perhaps of a form not currently observed by humans. Therefore, until this possibility is eliminated, atheists cannot prove gods do not exist, therefore atheism as a belief in the nonexistence of gods is as irrational as theism as a belief in the existence of gods.

Notice that by the description of the three realities of the universe I am not claiming gods exist, nor am I claiming gods do not exist, but I am claiming that the gods, if they exist are comprised of matter/energy, i.e., I am showing the nature, the essence, of the gods, if they exist.

I am thus showing how it is that agnostics can have a belief in the inconclusiveness of the claims of knowledge of the existence of gods of theists and the claims of knowledge of the nonexistence of gods by atheists and that, therefore, agnostics, despite the claims of atheists, and, perhaps theists, are not atheists but, instead, are exactly what nonscholars define them to be and what agnostics define themselves to be.

doubtingt

According to these definitions, the founders were atheists with respect to most God concepts of the day, because several of them (especially Paine) actively believed that these Gods did not exist. If "atheism" requires the belief that all conceivable gods can be proven to not exist then I have never met in atheist and doubt any have ever existed.

A large % of self-labeled "agnostics" I have met, reject the existence of past and current conceptions of God that are falsifiable. Thus, they are atheists with respect to all gods they have evaluated (which is a rational position). They hold onto the label "agnostic" b/c they acknowledge that their may be some kind of "god" not yet conceived or untestable that might exist, they don't know. As you point out, these agnostics believe that atheism means thinking there is proof that all gods (conceivable or otherwise) do not exist, thus they say they are not atheists. Well, since virtually no one is an atheist by this definition that's rather uniformative.
By any stretch, they are about as atheistic as people get.


As for Paine, is there evidence that he believed in prayer?
His article, "OF THE RELIGION OF DEISM
COMPARED WITH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION " starts with:

"Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed. It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation."

He goes on to talk about how all that can be rationally believed regarding God is that he exists and any extra assumptions are human invention. The idea that God responds to human request by intervening in the workings of this creation certainly go beyond this simple creed and contradict the above statment.

In addition, it is quite clear that his basis for accepting the existence of a creator lies entirely in the argument that the design of nature cannot be explained without an intelligent designer. This argument was far more intellectually defensible in his day than in ours. Deism was the only rationally defensible theism in Paines mind, b/c it made only the assumption that there was a creator and that was the only assumption that could be empirically justified. He rejected faith-based revelation, thus his deism was more a kind of scientifically justifiable inference than a religious faith.
Given this, I think it highly likely that a post-Darwin Paine would have abandoned deism in favor of atheism towards most known gods and agnosticism towards the deistic conception.
If not, his deism would be in contradiction to his own arguments against Christianity.

Fr.Andrew

(BobK): 1. Normal people, defined as nonscholars, have a tendency to define theist, atheist, and agnostic as I have defined them.
(Fr Andrew): "Normal" people are nonscholars, huh? ;-)
Regardless the "tendencies" of others, it is incorrect to define theist, atheist and agnostic as you have done.
It seems to me that it is better to rectify misunderstandings that interfere with accurate communication, than it is to alter the meanings of words to suit your current audience.

"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less"---Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass

Butters

This is all very interesting, but does ANYONE have any info on the theory that the ancient Hebrew word for prophet once meant musician or poet?

Fr.Andrew

I'm sorry...I wander a lot.
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding. The Hebrew word for prophet, navi, came into use about the time of Samuel as a synonym for "man of God" and "seer" (1 Sam 9:9). Ecstatic behavior, accompanied by singing and playing musical instruments was a trait associated with the early nevi'im--Saul encounters one such group in 1 Sam 10:5.
Howzat?

Bob K

doubtingt

To call a Deist an atheist, no matter how precise you try to define in what ways a Deist is an atheist, is irrational because of the true nature of atheism as it contrasts with theism.

Deism is a religion.

Religion is a philosophy which includes belief in the existence of gods. Any philosophy which includes belief in the existence of gods is a religion. No philosophy which does not include a belief in the existence of gods is a religion. Any definition of 'religion' which claims a deeply held or deeply felt conviction or belief is a religion trivializes the term 'religion' because any kind of philosophy, including those deeply held by only a few individuals, would qualify to be a religion, which is contradictory to the common/vernacular usage of the term 'religion,' which is a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods, therefore, to be clear, and to be rational concerning the usage of the term 'religion,' I prefer to limit it to the definition I have proposed, that a religion is a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods.

Theism is a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods, therefore, theism is a religion. Deism, therefore, is a form of theism.

For nonscholars, theism is a belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods.

Atheism is a philosophy which does not include a belief in the existence of gods, therefore, atheism is not a religion. Deism, therefore, is not atheism in general, and claiming it is atheism in specifics is too much of a stretch for rational conversation, because 'atheism' becomes trivialized and therefore meaningless if applied to too many specific cases, especially when it is applied to a philosophy which is a religion.

For nonscholars, atheism is a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.

Agnosticism is a philosophy which does not include a belief in the existence of gods, therefore, agnosticism is not a religion.

For nonscholars, agnosticism is a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods and in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods.

Deists did not believe the Xn god existed as described in the Babel, because they did not believe in revelation as the means for determining if or not gods exist, but, instead, believed that the one god could be determined to exist through rational means, particularly the teleological argument:

Premise #1: That which is designed is proof of the existence of a designer.
Premise #2: The universe was designed.
Conclusion: There must have been a designer, and that designer could only be God.

There are two types of Deists: Type 1, the ancient form, arising in Greece, which included a belief that the god did not intervene in human affairs; Type 2, the 16th century form, developed in England, which included a belief that the god could be prayed to and thereby influenced to intervene in human affairs. The US Founders were mostly Deists, and those Founders who were Deists were mostly Type 2 Deists, who believed that the god intervened in human affairs. the Deist Founders who attended Xn churches, because no Deist churches existed, believed in the efficacy of prayer and therefore were Type 2 Deists.

Deists did not believe in the Xn Trinity, nor in the fall of man that required the death/resurrection of J, etc., therefore they rejected Xnity. Deists were, and are, theists, with a belief in the existence of a god.

To label Deists theists in some respects, primarily by their belief in the existence of a god, while labeling them atheists in other respects, as not believing in the revelation-type, the god of Xnity, etc., belabors 'atheist' and 'atheism' and requires too much headwork to keep straight which characteristics are being labeled 'atheistic' and which are being labeled 'theistic,' and does not produce any significant increase in human knowledge.

'Best to leave this thus: Deists = Theists.

Bob K

I am championing definitions of theism/atheism/agnosticism based upon belief in the existence/nonexistence of proof, and the theist is defined as having a belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods, the atheist is defined as having a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, and the agnostic is defined as having no belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods and no belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods to clarify definitions and to avoid semantic debates over definitions of terms.

Bob K

There is nothing in the immediately above quote and report you have provided which show conclusively that Paine did not believe in an interventionist god and therefore in the efficacy of prayer.

What would be the point of belief in a god that created the universe but does not involve itself in human affairs? Do you worship this god? How? Do you sing/shout its praises? Do you sacrifice virgins to it? Animals? Other than an intellectual satisfaction of a religious answer to the question: How did we get here?, there would be no reason to act upon a belief in the existence of a noninterventionist god.

If you do not accept the statement that there are two types of Deism, and that Type 2 Deism includes a belief in an interventionist God, and that most of the Founders who were Deists were Type 2 Deists with a belief in an interventionist god, all of which can be backed with historical facts, as included on my website article on the Deism of the US Founders, then you are not aware of the fact of Type 2 Deism and you will continue to believe the only form of Deism is the Type 1 Deism, which is false, as I have shown.

At present, I am not aware of whether Paine's Deism was Type 1 [non-interventionist god] or Type 2 [interventionist god], hence I am not aware of if or not Paine believed in the efficacy [effectiveness] of prayer.

Type 1 had been in existence for some time since ancient times, but Type 2 was a new variation and developed in England in the 16th century and therefore was readily available to Paine and the other Founders, and the information available suggests that the majority of the Founders who were Deists were Type 2 Deists, with a belief in an interventionist god.

Bob K

I would need you to provide more of Paine's 'arguments against Christianity' to understand what you mean when you claim that a post-Darwin Paine 'would have abandoned deism in favor of atheism towards most known gods and agnosticism towards the deistic conception.'

However, in the Grand Scheme of Things, speculating over what Paine would/would not have thought concerning evolution and its intellectual impact upon the teleological argument for the existence of gods produces no great impact upon the World Situation as it currently stands.