What do you call...

[bobcat]

No, this isn't the start of a bad joke. Rather, I was discussing religious labels with a friend the other day. I couldn't find one for myself. I don't NEED a label, of course, to justify my beliefs. But I'm interested if there is any significant study into the belief system that I hold, or even a term for it.

On the one hand, I'm certainly not a theist. I don't believe in a theistic god, since I can't explicitly claim that such a creature could exist. On the other hand, I don't consider myself to be an atheist, at least not in the current usage of the word (one that believes that god explicitly doesn't exist). On the OTHER hand (yes, we're using a mutant as a hand model here), I am certainly not an agnostic, as I don't believe that the god-concept is explicitly unknowable.

I believe that, well, I don't CARE if god exists or doesn't, because such existance doesn't affect me much. Aside from the little magic tricks of Mormonism, which represented an overall small percentage of my beliefs, I haven't changed my mind on very much. I still value liberty and free thought and action as much as I did before. Even when I was a temple-attending TBM, I was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-secularism in the public sphere. I didn't believe a sip of beer was inherently evil: I just didn't want any (a sin I have since repented of :D).

So I ASSUME that because I don't explicitly believe in god, I'm an atheist, because that doesn't require a disbelief in god either . But, to those who are better versed in (ir)religous belief than me, is there a school of thought I might use to further examine my beliefs?

[Jeff_Ricks]

No, this isn't the start of a bad joke. Rather, I was discussing religious labels with a friend the other day. I couldn't find one for myself. I don't NEED a label, of course, to justify my beliefs. But I'm interested if there is any significant study into the belief system that I hold, or even a term for it.

On the one hand, I'm certainly not a theist. I don't believe in a theistic god, since I can't explicitly claim that such a creature could exist. On the other hand, I don't consider myself to be an atheist, at least not in the current usage of the word (one that believes that god explicitly doesn't exist). On the OTHER hand (yes, we're using a mutant as a hand model here), I am certainly not an agnostic, as I don't believe that the god-concept is explicitly unknowable.

I believe that, well, I don't CARE if god exists or doesn't, because such existance doesn't affect me much. Aside from the little magic tricks of Mormonism, which represented an overall small percentage of my beliefs, I haven't changed my mind on very much. I still value liberty and free thought and action as much as I did before. Even when I was a temple-attending TBM, I was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-secularism in the public sphere. I didn't believe a sip of beer was inherently evil: I just didn't want any (a sin I have since repented of :D).

So I ASSUME that because I don't explicitly believe in god, I'm an atheist, because that doesn't require a disbelief in god either . But, to those who are better versed in (ir)religous belief than me, is there a school of thought I might use to further examine my beliefs?I had similar thoughts the other day as I was driving to work. Specifically, I also thought that I don't NEED a label. I am what I am, so be it!

I think that labeling something tends to assign boundaries to it and my beliefs about life, as I think most people here, continue to evolve. I'm certainly not comfortable with the theist label anymore, and I've never been quite comfortable with the atheist label, although I've called myself that at times depending on the context of the conversation. I suppose the label that I'm most comfortable with, but not totally, is Spong's "post-theist" label (see this post (http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showpost.php?p=18972&postcount=2)).

Jeff

[frauline]

Have you looked into Pantheism? My dad considers this the religion of the Jedi.


"(2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.
The book recognized as containing the most complete attempt at explaining and defending pantheism from a philosophical perspective is Spinoza's Ethics, finished in 1675 two years before his death."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

[Jeff_Ricks]

Have you looked into Pantheism? My dad considers this the religion of the Jedi.

"(2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it."Quantum physics is pointing us in this direction too. David Bohm, who's views are well respected in the community of quantum physicsts, wrote a book called, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. It's not an easy book to wrap you're head around (at least not for me) but one thing that comes across clearly is his view that all things both "living" and "non-living" exist as one great whole. I put quotes around the words because essentially he sees no distinction between the two, and I tend to agree with the view. Keep in mind that his views are based on empirical data, not on what feels right to him or not on any burning in his bosom. Here’s a quote from the back cover of his book:

“I find his concept of wholeness extraordinarily appealing, as an explanation of the riddles of modern physics, and as a prescription for human living.” John P. Wiley Jr, Smithsonian

Maybe Bohm is really a Jedi Master!

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/DavidBohm/Bohmweb.jpg
DAVID BOHM


Hmmm.... On the other hand, I think not. ;)


Jeff

[helemon]

But, to those who are better versed in (ir)religous belief than me, is there a school of thought I might use to further examine my beliefs?

How about apathiest? ;) Hey, if PM and Daryl can make up words so can I!

[elder_nomo]

I believe that, well, I don't CARE if god exists or doesn't, because such existance doesn't affect me much.
Bobcat - This portion of your post got me thinking you might be interested in a church I ran across a while back.
It's called "The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic" and their motto is...
"We don't know and we don't care." :D
http://apatheticagnostic.com/

[lunaverse]

Or Militant Agnostic -- I don't know and YOU DON'T EITHER!!

Actually, agnosticism doesn't mean for me an implication that God cannot ever be known. I think certainly if there was a God, and that being decided enough was enough, and came here to earth and said "Look here, I am God!" and started shooting lightening bolts and creating planets just to prove it, that would be some pretty good evidence (although still not Proof) that there's a God.

In fact, as an agnostic, I accept the possibility of lots of Gods out there doing their thing and not really giving Loki's Left Liver about us humans.

So to me it simply means "not knowing", I don't know. That does not preclude me having a better idea tomorrow.

You might also want to check out Deism, the idea that there is a God, but he left the planet shortly after creating it because there were more interesting things to do. The writings of Thomas Paine are very interesting.

Luna

[puff]

How about apathiest? ;) Hey, if PM and Daryl can make up words so can I!i,m quite happy to die and be labled a **** up

[bobcat]

I'm not much one for postheism, Jeff. I have read a lot of Spong, and I liked his books, but in the end I decided that it wasn't quite what I'm looking for. Apatheism, helemon, was a fine idea! I might have grabbed that label, if someone hadn't suggested pantheism. I didn't realize that this philosophy had a name, and was actually well studied. I find folks like Spinoza very interesting, and I think I'm going to explore in that direction for a little bit. Thanks for the suggestions, everyone.

[helemon]

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/george_carlin/2.html
“Atheism is a non-prophet organization”-George Carlin

There are several great lines on that site.:D

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_Carlin
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck." - George Carlin

[runfromsafety]

Bobcat - This portion of your post got me thinking you might be interested in a church I ran across a while back.
It's called "The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic" and their motto is...
"We don't know and we don't care." :D
http://apatheticagnostic.com/
This was from their site....
We do not know because we cannot know. The ultimate truth about the existence of a Supreme Being is unknowable. Recognizing this, we can free ourselves from a fruitless search and indeed, no longer care about answering the question. This does not mean we don't care about agnosticism. They seem to be a mixture of the serious and the light hearted. Sadly though if this view was always taken about things collectively thought impossible then many of the most significant advancements in human knowledge, science and philosophy would never have been made. Thankfully many of the great minds in history did not think this way! I am certainly not one of the great minds of history, but I can learn from them, and I choose not to think that way either.

Have you come across a book that came out a few years ago (long before all the DaVinci code stuff) called "How to think like Leonardo DaVinci"... very motivational in this area. He believed in embrasing ambiguity and paradox.