[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> Wikipedia is a site with no true editors, just opinionators who fight over the
> definitions, and the nastiest one or the most persistent deleter
> wins.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Its dialogic nature makes it more reliable, in my opinion, certainly more
> reliable that flipping through some one-line "definitions" until you find one
> that suits your needs. If you think Wikipedia is so easily molded, by all means
> try editing the entry. 

MP: "Dialogic nature" is by definition wholly useless for the purpose of 
establishing a commonly accepted definition of a word. Dialog depends on the 
meaning of words being constant, not in "dialogic" flux. Etymological constancy 
is the foundation for dialog, *not* the other way around. If the meaning of words 
are dialogic in nature, dialog becomes meaningless.

That said, I don't discount that wikipedia has value. But recent changes being 
proposed to deal with the very problem I point out only re-inforce my point; 
when the topic is politically charged, wikipedia's reliability as a neutral source 
breaks down where other more "authoritarian" models hold up. Meaning by 
democracy is not meaning. And this is really diverging from the topic at hand, 
so...

> Encyclopedia of Science and Religion.
> 
> "... Theism contrasts with nonpersonal understandings of ultimate
> reality, such as the law of karma or the principle of emptiness in Buddhism.
> Theistic beliefs can set the stage for the science-religion dialogue because
> these beliefs are not contained within contemporary scientific theories and may
> stand in prima facie tension with them."
MP: Buddhism... that's your "Zen" right? Science... that's everyone's "rule book" 
to replace theism, right? Theism in this analysis sure seems like a player to me; 
one more way to understand the void, "better" or "worse" being entirely 
subjective.

> Encyclopedia Britannica. 
> 
> "Theism is the view that all limited or finite
> things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which
> one may also speak in personal terms. ... Theism?s view of God can be
> clarified by contrasting it with that of deism, of pantheism, and of mysticism."
MP: Interesting, there's that word "personal" again. And its also cropping up in 
many discussions here that have the MoQ pointing toward a "personal" 
understanding of the unknown. MoQ. Quality. Exprience. Personal. Theism. I 
cannot help but see a pattern and relationship.

> [Michael]
> The very fact that they use "deity" presupposes a face on the God.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The word "God" (or gods, or g*d) presupposes a face (or faces) on the Void.
MP: Costello: "I don't know." ... Abott & Costello: "THIRD BASE!"


> [Michael]
> If atheism can use the most inclusive definition of "god or gods" (the one I
> insist is legitimate) when defining itself in opposition to theism, why do you
> insist theism cannot? Atheism exists only by theism, so if atheism can do it,
> theism *MUST* do it by default.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I dont recall you asking me this. But I don't see the issue. 
MP: IF "atheism" can be a position of not believing in god where this "god" has 
no need to be defined culturally to allow atheism to be defined, AND atheism is 
nothing more than the rejection of theism, THEN theism is *without question* 
the belief in a god that has no need to be defined culturally for the definition of 
theism to have meaning. Hence theism, can be (I'm arguing *is*) th*ism.

My whole point of ever even going into this whole discussion about theism was 
in reaction to an atheist position against theism that presupposed theism 
incapable of being anything but its cultural manifestations where atheism does 
not hold itself to the same standard. I reject that. I believe theism is not its 
cultural manifestations, but their primagenitor. A rejection of theism (atheism) 
for the cultural responses to it is IMO assigning blame to the wrong source.

I'm not on this to force theism into MoQ, or force theism as a belief set over 
others. Just defending theism from what I see as misguided attack where I 
believe culture is the culprit.