[MD] Theism/epistemology

[MarshaV]

At 11:39 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
> > Marsha
> > Okay, you like the label G*d.  Is G*d like the color I pick to paint
> > my bedroom?   Or does G*d have a function?



>MP: I'm detecting sarcasm...

No sarcasm.



>To the first: Yes, when speaking of theism in its most inlcusive 
>definition I have
>found that in here it is necessary to keep using "g*d" (no caps) as a word to
>describe a god absent cultural layering being the focus of the 
>belief invested in
>the definition of theism in that regard. I seem to not be able to 
>convince some
>here that the word "theism" *can* be used this way, that it is *not* 
>a four letter
>word.

A concept with no value will soon cease to exist.  But, also, how are 
you going to get everyone to take up your inclusive definition of 
g*d?   Maybe you're not convincing because your argument doesn't make 
much sense?



>To the second: No, I don't see that g*d to be a color. :-\

I don't see that g*d has any more value than the color I choose for 
my bedroom.  I believe blue would be nice.  How are you going to make 
me think differently?



>To the third: The question misses the point entirely. No; once that g*d has a
>function, it ceases to be g*d, and becomes "god" or "God" or "Allah" 
>or "Yaweh"
>or...  But as a word ("g*d" v. "God") yes that word g*d has a 
>function; it is the
>necessarily divine focus of a belief prior to its being culturally 
>manifest. Anything
>more than that and it needn't have the "*" and we're no longer talking about
>theism in its most inclusive definition.

I do not see the value of g*d.  What divine focus prior to 
belief?  Are you talking about DQ?  Or DQ intersecting with 
sq?  Isn't that just moment-to-moment experience?  What is divine 
focus?  I'm not familiar with that pattern.  And why bother to talk 
about theism?



>That's the point of the "*." To allow the word "theism" to be used 
>in a context
>where the main meaning of the word is centered on the act of 
>believing, not on
>the subject of the belief.

But why?  Theism is a word with very thick and static 
connotations.  What is the 'act of believing'?   Do you mean like 
believing in Santa Claus and Tinkerbell?  Why can I not believe 
whatever I like, like the color blue would look nice on my bedroom walls?


>  It focuses the word's meaning to be about the
>*experience* of the belief rather than the *object* of the experience.

What happened to 'divine focus prior to belief'?  Experience is 
experience, how you describe it is something different.



> > Marsha
> > What is the relationship between theism and knowledge and how is it
> > determined?
>MP: IMO, it depends entirely on the definitions of "theism", "knowledge" and
>"determine" being agreed upon ... My experience here so far would lead me to
>be hesitant to answer what appears to be an otherwise 
>straightforward question
>without some degree of mutual agreement of those definitions.

Well, I don't agree with you that theism or g*d are valuable to the 
MOQ.  I haven't heard a valid argument that they are?



>But I'm willing to go out on a limb and posit that both are 
>humanity's attempt to
>attain greater understanding of the human condition in a reality 
>that is not easily
>explained within the limitations associated with being human. One 
>way seeks it
>through intellectual rigor, the other through mystical experience.

Neither intellectual rigor or mystical experience depend on g*d or 
theism.  And I think the MOQ offers a greater understanding of 
reality than the concept of g*d or theism.


Marsha



_____________

QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!