Define my Theological Pigeon-hole.

[Ready4Change]

A couple of recent posts brought to my mind, yet again, the question of "What am I?" So lets find my pigeon-hole. I need to know what to write into that "religion" blank on forms, if nothing else.

Where to start?

It's easier for me to say what I'm not. For example: A major religion, with huge cathedrals and people marching around in robes and singing? That isn't me. Since my teen years I've yet to meet what I'd call an organized religion that didn't ignite cynicism in me. It reminds me of a line from a Star Trek movie. "Why does God need a starship?" Why does God need a church?

So, howabout some form of the less defined or organized "isms?" I've examined some new agey, trendy things and found them intrensically hollow. Like fashions.

So, howabout some of the non-religions, if you will? Athiesm (to bring up the subject of the latest thread to get me thinking on these lines) for example. I read Athiesm as being a statement that, as there is no hard evidence of god, then there is no reason to believe in god. That sounds fine to me, except that, with no evidence, there is also no reason to deny there is a god. No evidence is no evidence. I'm a programmer. Our "god" evidence is niether for or against. It is null. It is irrational to draw either conclusion. I'm not convinced either way.

Agnostic? That's closer. But my dictionary says that Agnosticism is a belief that god (or it's equivelent) is ultimately unknowable. Maybe I've too much "faith" in science, but I'd like to think we'll keep on unpeeling this universe of ours and eventually we'll figure out this god-angle.

That brings up science. While I don't think of it as a theological belief system, I've seen "Dark Star" enough times that I understand how phenomenology can be used to claim science is a belief system. (Hey, Bomb?) Still, I see science as a tool, not a theology. The universe doesn't work because of science. But, eventually, science may explain how a giant turtle is carrying our world through the universe on its back, or whatever.

Bereft of a defining "ism," I call myself an undecided. For whatever reason I like to think there is something out there, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we assume we are anywhere near ready or able to comprehend it at this time. So, for me, god is a place holder. He is the blank area of the map outside of what science has delivered to us as knowable facts. Some of us have drawn dragons there, some have drawn whirlpools, or waterfalls off the edge of the world.

I instead look and wonder at the page for being exacly what it is, and wait for the time when something will come along and fill in the blanks.

So, what am I? Maybe this can be like 20 questions, but where I don't know when you've gotten the right answer either.

[silverweb]

1. Hmmm....

How about "open-minded seeker and free thinker" ?

:)

On the other hand, what does it really matter and do you really feel you need to be "pigeonholed" ?

PS - I haven't exactly pigeonholed myself yet, either. :D

[Ready4Change]

15. Maybe "Spiritually Independant?"

:) I don't really feel a need to be pigeon-holed. But, from time to time, the question comes up and having a handy label would be easier than starting a long description.

[silverweb]

24. I know what you mean.

Labels are very handy, but are too often just so restrictive and may have connotations for others that we do not intend.

"Spiritually independent" sounds just fine. Personally, I've got a couple of stock smart-assed responses, depending on my level of irritation with the questioner.

:evilgrin:

[Ready4Change]

29. Ooo.

Maybe fling a couple responses my way? Maybe my "angst" is because I just need some new material. :D

(Oooo! I'm all angsty! Wooo Hooo!)

[silverweb]

30. Hehehe...

Well, in increasing order of irritation, these are my standard responses to questions of what I "believe":

(1) I believe in possibilities.

(2) Does my belief or lack of it affect the truth of any reality? If not, then why would you even ask?

(3) My beliefs are my own business, not yours.

If you were hoping for something more snarky, I'm sorry to disappoint.

The most recent occasion was in response to a nice, middle-aged gentleman who was going door to door with his Bible. I cut him short with, "I'm quite familiar with the book ... and I have a church, thank you." He then wanted to know what church I belonged to, "if you don't mind my asking." I simply replied, "I do mind. Have a nice day." Then I smiled and closed the door.

He was obviously sincere and was very pleasant, but I find proselytizers at my door insulting, presumptuous, and intrusive by their very presence. While I don't like to be rude unless pushed, I do want to shut them up and send them on their way ASAP.

[Salviati]

2. Deism perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

<snip>

Historical and modern deism (from Latin: deus) is defined by the view that reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has also come to be identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.

much more in the article...

[Ready4Change]

17. Eh, that sounds a bit too sure there is a god.

I like to think there is one. But then again, I like to think that I can fly without an airplane. But you won't find me jumping off a cliff anytime soon.

To continue the metaphor, I am a pilot. So, in a sense, I CAN fly, but in a completely rationally understood manner. But I don't know of any machine that can deliver that ability as far as knowledge of god is concerned. Had I been born in the 1400's I'd be just as unsure about god as I was about my ability to fly.

[Finder]

3. Agnostic or Deist it sounds...

although you are mistaken as to the evidence regarding deity. Take one deity at a time and look at the evidence. Lack of evidence of Unicorns or dragons or gods or bigfoot does not mean they may exist. Delusion is not open-mindedness.

[Ready4Change]

18. What is preposterous today may be rational tomorrow.

People would have laughed at the notion of Earth being round like a ball as near as several hundred years ago. We now take it as fact. (Well, most of us, at least.)

Dragons are creatures of myth. Although dinasours meet the definition in many, many ways. So, dragons used to be fact.

I've met a unicorn. It was a pain in the butt of a little beast. Myth has got those all wrong.

And for a short while, in my home town, bigfoot was alive and well. I know, because I was the guy with the molds of big bare feet strapped to the bottom of by boots at 3am. ;)

[Finder]

32. No, people knew it was round for thousands of years...

the rational ones, that is.

[Warpy]

4. If you're talking about those intrusive forms

that ask questions that are nobody's business, just get perverse. I often write "Druid" in the religion space. Hey, I like trees. Besides, it's nobody's damned business what I believe or don't believe, and it's not anyone else's job to pigenhole me.

As for proving the nonexistence of god, a logic class told me that was not only unnecessary, it is impossible. If people want to prove that giant tortoise or a man on a cloud or a warrior's hall filled with squabbling deities exist, I'll be happy to watch their progress.

I really don't give a rip what gets somebody else through the long, dark nights, that's their business. I just want them to leave me alone with mine.

I guess that's the biggest threat of all. It reminds me of someone who has just gotten sober confronting his old drinking buddies. Anyone who doesn't partake becomes a terrible threat.

[kiahzero]

6. Faith is outside what can be proven through logic, generally

If you could logically prove an assertion (e.g., "There is a god"), there would be no need to have faith in that assertion, because you would then know it (I would argue it's impossible in most epistemologies to know something via faith, because faith would be inadequate justification for JTB or JTB+ theories of knowledge).

I'm curious how a logic class told you that the existence of divinity was not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Would you care to share?

[Warpy]

7. Read my statement again

and try to understand it. It was about proving a negative. The nature of the negative is irrelevant to the sentence.

[kiahzero]

14. Gah!

I fail at double negatives. I read that sentence three or four times, and my brain interpreted it as "existence of god" rather than "nonexistence of god."

My apologies.

[Ready4Change]

19. Heheh, I hear ya.

When asked in person I've at times said "Satanist" just to get a reaction, but I've yet to write it down on a form. That all is one reason I LOVE to emergence of the FSM. Just as silly, and less likely to give some old codger a heart attack.

And I'm totally with you regarding letting others believe whatever they want, so long as they return the favor. If only.

[bloom]

33. Here's another one - Discordianism

"Discordianism is a modern, chaos-based religion founded in either 1958 or 1959."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

[kiahzero]

5. Why do you need an "-ism?"

Faith is ultimately personal; even most members of "-isms" will tend to deviate slightly in one or several ways from the church that they belong. Ultimately, I tend to see religion as essentially a story that we find to be particularly inspiring, so much so that we try to live by its themes. This story doesn't even have to be one that exists in the proper sense - it can be your own personal story, with whatever themes motivate you in your daily life. Thus, to me, a well-written story with themes I identify with - stories of love, redemption, hope, and fighting (and eventually winning) the good fight - is far more 'religious' than the Old or New Testament. It's not so much about the supernatural to me, as much as the principles that the work embodies.

Of course, I arrived at this view as a consequence of my belief that what divinity may exist is unknowable in a direct sense, and that what we see as divine is what we make of it.

[Ready4Change]

20. I'm trying to collect the whole set?

Kidding. :D

I've used the idea of religion as story myself. It suits me as well as anything else, and a lot better than many other approaches.

I also think that, ultimately, spiritual beliefs are about as intimate and personal as you can get. I find it curious that, for so many, it has become highly social. Seems everyone has slightly different takes on things, yet so many struggle to adhere to a specific set of rules? Odd, odd.

I hear what you are saying there at the end. I too think that, at least now, divinity is directly unknowable, if its there at all.

However, (as I play a mental game of If) If there were an omnipotent, universe creating diety, It could have created things such that we could see as divine tings which would lead us to knowledge of the divine.

To use an abused idea from these boards, take Santa. Yah, he's made up. And kids at a certain age find out, and its a let down. But good parents can use that as an opportunity to inject some morality. Say ya, there's no physical Santa. But what his is is a metaphor for how generous and loving we can be, and an excuse to strive for that a little harder than we other wise might.

A god who loved his creation might set up such a circumstance.

Then again, a god who wanted a world of fattened, weak willed creatures to serve as a future source of food might do the same.

;)

Merry Xmas.

[Mythsaje]

8. This was my essay on religion... I consider myself a pantheist/humanist

I'm tired of religion. There, I said it. I'm tired of those who claim to have inside information as to the nature of the universe to which the rest of us aren't privvy...or don't believe. I'm tired of those who pretend that they're somehow better because they think some higher power has revealed to them (or us) the truth behind the illusion.

Fuck that.

We can't expect some higher power to come down and fix all the things we've broken. The reason our world and lives are fucked up is because WE humans fucked them up. And we were given (by nature or some mysterious creator) the brains, talent, and manipulative tools to fix a lot of them. If we can set aside our greed and lust for power long enough to bother. Disease? We can take care of that. Hunger? Ditto.

If we stop arguing about whose God is better and what country supposedly deserves his favor the most.

We have the tools, the intelligence, and the talent. We just don't have the drive.

We hand our power over to a bunch of fools who think there's some transcendent spirit that's going to come down and wave his hand and fix everything and then wonder why the world continues to be fucked up.

Stupid.

I know I'm supposed to give lip service to other peoples' beliefs and, for the most part, I do. I DO respect those who understand that this is our world and we're responsible for the welfare of our fellow humans. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and god knows how many other "prophets" have said so. And some of their followers listen and understand. Good for them. The ones who don't are the ones that raise my ire.

God's not going to fix everything. As long as we allow these dickheads to act as though that's what they expect, they're going to stumble around like a drunk troll in a glassmaker's shop, busting things and expecting someone off-stage to fix it all.

But you can't blame infant cancer on God. You can't expect him to wave his hand and fix it. All these exist because they're OUR problems. Even if some deity exists, all of our troubles are just that...OUR troubles. We were given the tools we have to fix them ourselves.

Science shouldn't be used to find better and more efficient ways to kill one another. That's NOT what it's for. We're not given the tools and talent to allow some folks to make obscene profits and live in houses so large that they have to hire dozens of servants just to clean them.

People can only LIVE in one house, and drive one automobile at a time. Why should some folks have ten cars and five houses, while some people sleep in cardboard boxes in alleys and under bridges? Because "God" likes it that way?

Nonsense. It's because we are entirely missing the point.

We can fix all of this, as long as we understand that it's OUR job. Taking care of one another...not trying to acquire as much shit as we can before we die.

Our troubles are human troubles, caused by human mistakes, and fixable by human ingenuity. I truly believe that.

And before you ask...I'm not an atheist, or even truly agnostic. I'm a pantheist/humanist. Or humanist/pantheist. I think the universe is a wonderous place, and possibly the only thing that deserves to be recognized as God. But, if this is indeed the case, each and every one of us, and every creature that walks, crawls, or swims, and even the trees through which the wind is blowing right now, and the wind itself, are ALL part of God and are therefore sacred.

"That which you do to the least of these" and all that.

"God" is too big a concept for anyone to have a handle on. Bible or no. Koran or no.

Science is what we call the act of trying to understand God. It's slow, and sometimes confusing. But it seeks to understand. It questions. It reveals. It learns. It grows.

Carl Sagan, in his book Contact, suggested a little something I found very intriguing. Maybe WE (intelligent beings) exist in order to someday explain God to itself.

For, as far as we know, and as far as we can prove, WE are the minds and hands of God. Not just us, but anything out there in the great unknown that can also think and build.

If this is the case, we've been mighty irresponsible deities, haven't we?

[Ready4Change]

21. Nice essay.

Lot of stuff I can agree with in there. Thanks.

Hey! Maybe I'm a budding "Mythsajeist!"

;)

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Been there, and...

I hear ya. Sounds like you might be seeking a path and good group to belong to.

I keep harping on the observation that we are in some respect spiritual creatures, and we seek answers to unanswerable questions.

I grew up in a traditional church, but I never did buy into the anthropmorphic God or much of the theology they tried to stuff us with. I gotta admit that sometimes I really did like the music, and a good preacher is great entertainment, but there was really no reason to believe in that God any more than there was to believe in Thor or Zeus. So, I started to think in terms of the many faces of God, and like the blind men and the elephant, each religion has a sliver of truth to it.

I ended up as a Quaker, since one major thread of Quaker theology fit in pretty well with my ideas-- God is that part of the universe that we cannot understand at this time, so we don't try to understand. Just accept that there is something greater than us and we'll call it God. Meanwhile, we consider living our lives here on earth far more important than fooling around answering the unanswerable, or arguing over it. We don't spend time arguing over angels on the head of a pin, but do spend a lot of time discussing how best to apply the Peace and Integrity testimonies.

I've also been hanging out at UU churches, and the universalist theology there is not that all different from universalist Quakers, although there's a lot less emphasis on worship of the whatever-God-is. Both are really big on education and progressive social action, too. Whatever measure of faith you may have is worthless without knowledge and action.

For some of us, a solo route may be best, but for most of us we are social as well as spiritual beings, and finding the right group to hang out with works very well.

[Ready4Change]

22. Quakers, UU's

Both of them have elements I like. The Quaker moments of quiet, while a bit too authoritorian for me (You will be silent and commune with god ... wait for it.... NOW! ) (Kidding, really) echo some of my own feelings, in that, if there is something "there" I get the impression that I can sometimes sense it in silence.

ANd I enjoy the UU's openness about discussing things. I think the universe was created by the FSM. I think the universe is like a huge loaf of garlic bread. Two great religions that taste great together! (Or maybe the UU group I visited is wackier than most?)

But I often feel more like a super ball, bouncing through a freshly painted house, picking up a little paint here, a little paint there, maybe leaving a smudge or two behind...

Thanks for the comments.

[spag68]

10. religion

If you are a religious person, you don,t need a religion.

[Ready4Change]

23. Or if I need a religion

then maybe I'm missing the point? :)

(Some how you're Zappa avatar fits, there. Thanks.)

[Trajan]

11. I havent time to go 'in-depth' ....

But I do see one problem ....

The assertions : "I read Athiesm as being a statement that, as there is no hard evidence of god, then there is no reason to believe in god. That sounds fine to me, except that, with no evidence, there is also no reason to deny there is a god. No evidence is no evidence. I'm a programmer. Our "god" evidence is niether for or against. It is null. It is irrational to draw either conclusion. I'm not convinced either way."

There are different forms of atheism, for instance, the so-called 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism ... Allegedly, weak atheism denies evidence, but makes no assertion against a possible deity, while a strong atheist denies both evidence AND possibility ....

Now for my disagreement: you say "Our "god" evidence is niether for or against. It is null. It is irrational to draw either conclusion.", one might exercize this notion in other subjects ....

Lets assert something: "There is a god, Turtus, who is in the form of a turtle, of which all turtles had been formed in his image, who rules a wonderful place known as Tortopia, where all dead things will rise and enter, after death, to be judged for their turtliness" .....

What evidence supports this assertion ? ..... none whatsoever .....

What evidence rejects this assertion ? ..... other than your 'good sense', none whatsoever .....

So; using your thesis, one MUST conclude that such a Turtle God cannot be ruled out, because "Our "god" evidence is niether for or against. It is null. It is irrational to draw either conclusion. I'm not convinced either way" ....

One could accept the possible existence of ANY such assertion, deity or object, as long as one cannot perfectly rule it out through positive evidence of non-existence. Hence why so many make such claims, some clearly ridiculous, and get away with it ....

How can one 'prove' that NO gods exist? .. One cannot prove non-existence; therefore: should we presume ALL gods exist ? ....

This is hardly a satisfying answer .....

As an atheist, I have long tried to define to myself and others what form my atheism takes, and what it ultimately means ... I dont accept the definitions as they are presented ....

I do not believe in the existence of a god as defined by the abrahamic theologies (Allah, YHWH, or Jesus). ..... A god as defined by them; omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent doesnt appear to be either/any/or omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent....

Even as I do not accept the existence of an abrahamic deity as fact, nor do I discount the possibility that such a god, or a similar god, one not perfectly defined by theology, might be existent nevertheless, truly ....

So, I am a 'weak' atheist, because I keep an open mind that 'evidence' may, eventually, be brought to our collective attention that would prove, once and for all, that a god exists ..... yet: without any such evidence currently being provided, there is no reason to presume this is true ....

I do NOT believe a god exists, so I am therefore strongly atheist ... yet I do not preclude the possibility, even if I have no reason to believe in such a god now ....

Just because one cannot disprove the existence of a thing, doesnt, in itself, create a need to accept the existence of that thing ......

Doubt is a powerful tool .... Faith is useless to me .....

[Ready4Change]

25. Thanks for the reply.

Lots said there. Thank you for the time spent.

In a lot of ways I agree. There's one spot where either I disagree, or i misunderstand:

How can one 'prove' that NO gods exist? .. One cannot prove non-existence; therefore: should we presume ALL gods exist ? ....

This is hardly a satisfying answer .....

I mean that we cannot presume anything any god(s). Not that they do or don't exist. Not that they are male, female or other. Not kind nor vengeful. Not made of spaghetti and meatball, nor pure love. Not one, not many. Not Red nor Blue nor Ultra-Violet. (Although how cool would it be to have an Ultra-Violet god, eh?)

How can we really know that turtles weren't put here on earth to always serve as a reminder of our creators ultimate nature?

We are surrounded by preposterous things we now know to be fact. (The floor I and standing on is really mostly empty space, within which a great number of infinitesimal particals are swirling, thus giving me the illusion of solid matter.) Granted, somethings we can imagine are more preposterous, and thus unlikely, than others.

But, I truly feel, we cannot rule anything out.

But, that's just me chirping in my cozy little pigeon-hole.

[nealmhughes]

12. If you want to attend meetings,

try UU or Ethical Culture.

[Ready4Change]

26. Haven't heard of Ethical Culture.

There's a UU joint nearby I've enjoyed dropping in on now and then. Good folk, and they haven't shown any tendency towards kicking me out as a heritic. That's a plus. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I'd say you're an agnostic

I don't think most definitions say you have to think that the existence of gods is unknowable - just that many agnostics do think that.

[Ready4Change]

27. I'm guessing, of the big categories, that's closest.

But it still feels like a pair of pants that are too tight in the wrong places, ya know?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. You are you

setting your own unique path through life. If you are comfortable with yourself, that is all that matters.

[Ready4Change]

28. I dunno. I'm maybe ALMOST me?

I mean, I'd like to be me. I'm awfully cool. I wish chicks would dig me as much as they dig me, you know? My car is almost as cool as my car, except mine isn't as clean and needs a little work. Also, I dream of having my act together as much as I do. I just always seem so confident and on target. But me? I'm a mess, inside. Really.

No, really. ;)

(And thanks, btw. YOU are right.)

[Evoman]

31. How do you define yourself?

Defining other people doesn't do much good...even when your right, your not really right.