[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> Ron, no. Theism is *not* the belief in deity; deity is a culturally
> laden term.
> That is my point.
> 
> [Arlo]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
MP: It does not say Theism is Deism, it says theism is belief in a deity (which in 
itself conflicts with Dictionary definitions depending on how one defines "deity")

de-ism
-noun
1. belief in the existence of a God ON THE EVIDENCE OF REASON AND 
NATURE ONLY, *with rejection of supernatural revelation* (distinguished from 
theism )."

the-ism
-noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, *without 
rejection of revelation* (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Random House Dictionary

Emphases mine. Deism is what MoQers (and quite a few others) demand be 
proved to them. Theism is something else. The two are not interchangeable. 
And in definition 2 is definitively inclusive of all g*d belief sets.

> [Arlo]
> You're trying to redefine the word (and I'm not sure why),
MP: I'm not redefining it, I'm insisting it be used as defined.

Initially, I sought to at least have it be used correctly because Dave was *so* 
flippant about conlfating it with "deism" and more so "religion" that it led him to 
reach conclusions that pedophilic priests were caused by simply believing in 
g*d or even God as if that had anything to do with it. 

But in exploring the dialog with you all it has become clear to me that there is an 
insistence here to limit the definition of theism to its least inclusive meaning for 
the distinct purpose of rejecting it due to the failings of its many cultural 
manifestations. There is a distinctly defensive reaction to the concept that 
Theism itself may have positive quality aspects when considered in its most 
inclusive.

I find the adamancy of the defence unfortunate, because I think there is much 
quality to be had from revisiting theism and what it has done / can do for 
humanity, especially in an MoQ context that seeks to move humanity forward 
from its "evil."

> [Arlo]
> try using one more accurate in the MOQ context; Zen.
MP: Uh... no, because it's decidedly NOT inclusive. I'm seeking to have the 
word Theism be used as inclusively as possible. Using "Zen" in its place does 
the exact opposite; it makes it exclusive of all but Zen or its subsets. I'm saying 
"don't bring religion into it" and you're saying effectively "do bring it in, and use 
this one, its the least religious." Theism has room for Zen and much else. Zen 
has only room for Zen. Zen is a subset of th*ism, not an analog of it.

> [Arlo]
> It almost seems like you are staring with the "need" to use the
> particular "theism", and then you're going to great lengths to make it
> something it isn't.
MP: Perhaps you should consider why it "seems" that way. You presume it 
seems that way because I am doing something. Have you considered its 
because *you* are doing something?

> [Arlo]
> "Theism" is ONE response to mystical experience. It is NOT mystical
> experience itself. 
MP: Correct. It is also however neither deism nor religion.

> [Arlo]
> And now you're doing the same thing with the asterized "g*d" (or even
> "th*ism"). But in doing so you are inadvertently conflating "g*d" or
> "th*ism" with Void from which our experience with gives rise to. 
MP: No, I am not. I'm not saying th*ism is this Void of yours, or that it is THE 
way or even A way to anything. I'm saying nothing more than it is the *seed 
root* of *some* ways to something irrelevant to what I'm saying.