Biggest Reason Theism is Rejected

[Received]

Maybe not the biggest, but I think it's definitely way up there.

It's the transition from a cultural and intellectual climate like with Aquinas to a climate of unquestionably accepting dogma without connecting religious concepts to secular ones, which means not seeing the connection between things like sin, spiritual death, spirit, etc., and how they make sense in secular language, as well as where God and all related concepts "fit" into the world in general.

I've always held that most Christians and theologians around today are esoteric to themselves. They don't know what their own concepts even mean, and they're too busy just accepting the "right things" about God, as if he could be placated by a formula and a divine checklist of all the right things you need to accept without really understanding them at all. This pretty clearly is motivated by tribalism or fear: the desire to fit in for the sake of excluding others or trepidation at God to the point that our intellectual faculties aren't capable of working properly.

What we need is not so much arguments for God as a really relevant theism. A theoretical theism that bridges the gap between secular and spiritual. Just like evolution is unavoidably useful because it connects everything biological together through a theory, the same would be the case if God were actually made relevant and aspects of religion connected theoretically to things like happiness, pathology, ethics, and ontology.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe not the biggest, but I think it's definitely way up there.

It's the transition from a cultural and intellectual climate like with Aquinas to a climate of unquestionably accepting dogma without connecting religious concepts to secular ones, which means not seeing the connection between things like sin, spiritual death, spirit, etc., and how they make sense in secular language, as well as where God and all related concepts "fit" into the world in general.

I've always held that most Christians and theologians around today are esoteric to themselves. They don't know what their own concepts even mean, and they're too busy just accepting the "right things" about God, as if he could be placated by a formula and a divine checklist of all the right things you need to accept without really understanding them at all. This pretty clearly is motivated by tribalism or fear: the desire to fit in for the sake of excluding others or trepidation at God to the point that our intellectual faculties aren't capable of working properly.

What we need is not so much arguments for God as a really relevant theism. A theoretical theism that bridges the gap between secular and spiritual. Just like evolution is unavoidably useful because it connects everything biological together through a theory, the same would be the case if God were actually made relevant and aspects of religion connected theoretically to things like happiness, pathology, ethics, and ontology.

In order to bridge that gap though...wouldn't you need evidence that the bridge works?

I imagine all religions at or near the time of their inception were extremely relevant in a secular way. The problem, of course, is as the passage of time continues...that relevance slips further and further away until you're left with something "esoteric" as you put it.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe not the biggest, but I think it's definitely way up there.

It's the transition from a cultural and intellectual climate like with Aquinas to a climate of unquestionably accepting dogma without connecting religious concepts to secular ones, which means not seeing the connection between things like sin, spiritual death, spirit, etc., and how they make sense in secular language, as well as where God and all related concepts "fit" into the world in general.

I've always held that most Christians and theologians around today are esoteric to themselves. They don't know what their own concepts even mean, and they're too busy just accepting the "right things" about God, as if he could be placated by a formula and a divine checklist of all the right things you need to accept without really understanding them at all. This pretty clearly is motivated by tribalism or fear: the desire to fit in for the sake of excluding others or trepidation at God to the point that our intellectual faculties aren't capable of working properly.

What we need is not so much arguments for God as a really relevant theism. A theoretical theism that bridges the gap between secular and spiritual. Just like evolution is unavoidably useful because it connects everything biological together through a theory, the same would be the case if God were actually made relevant and aspects of religion connected theoretically to things like happiness, pathology, ethics, and ontology.

IMO, theism and religious dogma simply can not be reconciled with reality and that is why some don't buy it.

Over time, some water down their belief, because they realize ignoring reality is not pleasant, but they are still at a place where they can not reject whether God exists and they work this out internally and still hold onto a belief. Could be why so many people have moved away from religion's dogmatic beliefs and have gone to non-denominational churchs.

 

[Received]

You both make me think of an interesting question: what's more important to us? Facts and truth, or theory? You can't really make sense of facts and truths without some type of theory to tie them together, and theory is more of a narrative than a "truth" per se.

 

[Received]

In order to bridge that gap though...wouldn't you need evidence that the bridge works?

I imagine all religions at or near the time of their inception were extremely relevant in a secular way. The problem, of course, is as the passage of time continues...that relevance slips further and further away until you're left with something "esoteric" as you put it.

I don't think you need evidence; you need theory. It's really a question, maybe, of which theory ties together the facts and truths you already do know, rather than what counts as the biggest fact or verifiable truth. And theory is probably more important to us, given that we're meaning-seeking creatures, and theory is much more meaningful than truths or facts. So perhaps at heart it isn't about objective truth at all, but subjective truth, or that which gives meaning. Hence Kierkegaard's splash that he must find a truth that's true for him, one for which he can live and die. Theory is a bit closer to this way of viewing things, a bit closer to subjective truth than objective truth (facts, representation of reality).

 

[bhsmte]

You both make me think of an interesting question: what's more important to us? Facts and truth, or theory? You can't really make sense of facts and truths without some type of theory to tie them together, and theory is more of a narrative than a "truth" per se.

All depends on one's psychological makeup and needs and the needs can change over time. In regards to facts, truth and theory, I would add another one and that would be; hope. Also, how an individual determines the truth, can vary from person to person.

 

[Received]

All depends on one's psychological makeup and needs and the needs can change over time. In regards to facts, truth and theory, I would add another one and that would be; hope. Also, how an individual determines the truth, can vary from person to person.

And what's more conducive to hope, or at least most similar in structure to hope? Hope implies where you are connected with where you could be in a happier way. In that sense it's just like meaning. Which puts it closer to theory. I think the desire for meaning is fundamental and universal.

 

[bhsmte]

And what's more conducive to hope, or at least most similar in structure to hope? Hope implies where you are connected with where you could be in a happier way. In that sense it's just like meaning. Which puts it closer to theory. I think the desire for meaning is fundamental and universal.

What I am trying to say is this; what drives whatever theory (or better yet hypothesis) one chooses to cling to in life, is going to be driven by their psychological need, related to what hopes they have.

 

[Received]

What I am trying to say is this; what drives whatever theory (or better yet hypothesis) one chooses to cling to in life, is going to be driven by their psychological need, related to what hopes they have.

And I don't think people have different needs here. So that's theory. What drives truth? I think it's also connected to theory: we seek truths (and facts) because they're material through which we stitch together a bigger idea with theory. It's all the same need. What is this need? Well, it can't just be to know the truth or to put a narrative on things. It's probably closer to being happy.

 

[bhsmte]

And I don't think people have different needs here. So that's theory. What drives truth? I think it's also connected to theory: we seek truths (and facts) because they're material through which we stitch together a bigger idea with theory. It's all the same need. What is this need? Well, it can't just be to know the truth or to put a narrative on things. It's probably closer to being happy.

We are not far apart, but the word "happy" is always one I think is overused.

To me, an individuals own theory they cling to and then seek reason to adhere to it, has more to do with; comfort and security. Now, that may make them happy as well, but I don't see the term happy as having a deep enough meaning to apply.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just like evolution is unavoidably useful because it connects everything biological together through a theory, the same would be the case if God were actually made relevant and aspects of religion connected theoretically to things like happiness, pathology, ethics, and ontology.

Lot's of people tried to build such a theory. The problem is that it can't be done. Because the very premise is flawed if it doesn't have any evidence in support of it.

 

[Received]

Lot's of people tried to build such a theory. The problem is that it can't be done. Because the very premise is flawed if it doesn't have any evidence in support of it.

Again, there's a difference between theory and evidence. And some authors -- very few these days, like the late Dallas Willard -- have made successful attempts at connecting secular and spiritual realms with spiritual concepts relevant in secular life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You both make me think of an interesting question: what's more important to us? Facts and truth, or theory?

Assuming you mean theory in the scientific sense, then most definatly theory.

Facts are a dime a dozen.

Rocks fall. That's a fact.
Banana's fall. That's another fact.
If I jump, I'll fall back down. That's another fact.

Great. It's good to have these facts. We can abstract these consistent facts into a law: things fall down and not up.

But why? That's the interesting part. And that's where theories fit in. They'll explain the facts and the laws, and make predictions about what other facts we should find.

So yea, theory definatly is the most important thing. Theory means explanation.

 

[Received]

We are not far apart, but the word "happy" is always one I think is overused.

To me, an individuals own theory they cling to and then seek reason to adhere to it, has more to do with; comfort and security. Now, that may make them happy as well, but I don't see the term happy as having a deep enough meaning to apply.

Yeah, it's definitely too shallow a term. I guess I should try defining it: happiness is that state that is valued for itself, a state people want to be at for no other reason than being there. An end in itself.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, there's a difference between theory and evidence. And some authors -- very few these days, like the late Dallas Willard -- have made successful attempts at connecting secular and spiritual realms with spiritual concepts relevant in secular life.

And, what did that look like?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think you need evidence; you need theory.

Theories without evidence are worthless and infinite in number.

And theory is probably more important to us, given that we're meaning-seeking creatures, and theory is much more meaningful than truths or facts.

Theories don't really provide meaning though. They provide explanation of phenomena. They explain why the facts are the way they are and they are falsifiable through testable predictions.

Without such predictability - you don't have a theory.

 

[Received]

And, what did that look like?

Well, basically, making otherwise vague and irrelevant terms like "sin" and "Kingdom of God" relevant to and connected with daily (secular) life. So sin, for example, actually has psychological, emotional, and physical consequences, rather than "just" spiritual ones (which most people wrongly equate with "what makes God real angry"). And the Kingdom of God, being the sphere of life and behavior where God's will is yielded to, means changes in political systems and helping your neighbor down the street to get food, as well as changing yourself internally so you're a better person, which is valuable for you psychologically and by extension valuable for society and even economically, given the higher financial payoff coming from people with their stuff together.

 

[bhsmte]

Theories without evidence are worthless and infinite in number.



Theories don't really provide meaning though. They provide explanation of phenomena. They explain why the facts are the way they are and they are falsifiable through testable predictions.

Without such predictability - you don't have a theory.

Technically, you are correct, but I believe received is using the term in a much looser fashion, more like a hypothesis.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, there's a difference between theory and evidence.

Yes, there is. A theory requires evidence. You have no theory if you have no evidence. Well, we can bicker about that word, but at the very least, you won't have a good or usefull theory.

It will be worthless. Theories/models without supportive evidence and without predictability are infinite in number.

And some authors -- very few these days, like the late Dallas Willard -- have made successful attempts at connecting secular and spiritual realms with spiritual concepts relevant in secular life.

For such models to be successfull, they would need evidence that "spiritual realm" (whatever that is) actually exists. Where is this evidence?

 

[Received]

Theories without evidence are worthless and infinite in number.

Theories are by definition without evidence, because they transcend evidence by putting bits of evidence and truth (which isn't equivalent to evidence) together into a framework.

Theories don't really provide meaning though. They provide explanation of phenomena. They explain why the facts are the way they are and they are falsifiable through testable predictions.

Without such predictability - you don't have a theory.

Theories might not intrinsically have personal meaning (my point was theory is more *like* meaning, BTW), but they definitely have extrinsic meaning. Take my realization that taking fish oil makes me live longer and is better for my mood. Well, that opens up the meaning possibilities associated with feeling better (maybe I spend more time outside, running, reading).