Re: non-atheism

Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> > >--- Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I also noted that I don't seem to know any word
> > > > for somebody who disbelieve in supernatural
> > > > creatures of any kind or power,
> > > > but yet believe in the existence of something
> > > > more than the material
>
> > Sorry, but you've lost me entirely here. What has to
> > to with religions and what is nonreligious.
>
>Gods and jinns are "religious": they're the things we
>were originally talking about (or at least the things
>some of us were talking about), the things for which
>the word "theist" doesn't really work well.
I agree. I rather like the term "numinist" that somebody recently coined.
>
>"Something more than material" could be anything from
>mental images or memories all the way to Goddess
>Herself. This implies a need for a different set of
>vocabulary than the one we were discussing.
We-ell, many people believe that mental images ARE material.
>
> > > > (they
> > > > may f'rinstance believe there are objective
> > > > ethical rules with an
> > > > accompanying duty of material creatures to
> > > > follow them,
> > >
> > >This doesn't fit in the atheist to theist spectrum.
> >
> > That was kind of the point.
>
>Er. OK. I guess we've got two or more points going on
>then...
>
> > >Generally, such ethical systems are either
> > >implied or explied (hm) in a religion (7 of 10
> > >commandments are totally objective ethical rules,
> > >e.g., put in the mouth of a god).
>
> > Well, I suspect I'm not entirely alone in thinking
> > that Gods and ethical duties both belong to the
> > immaterial.
>
>Indeed not. If you're lumping ethics and gods together
>(especially as a matter of necessity), though, you may
>find less company. I don't see religion or gods (or
>Gods for those that prefer) are prerequisites for
>ethics.
I don't think that religion (in the usual sense) is a prerequisite for
ethics. I do however argue that consistent materialism has to deny both.

>
>This secondary point, then, is more of a material v.
>nonmaterial; rather than a gods v. lesser supernatural
>beings thing.
>
> > > > or in a mind-and-matter dichotomy that's
> > > > non-supernatural since the mental part of
> > > > the universe follows laws of nature just like
> > > > the material).
> > >
> > >Wow. Does it?
> >
> > The material part of the universe?
>
>No. The "mental" part. I know the material part does.
>
> > It seems so to me, but that's harldy
> > relevant. Unless you want to deny the existence of
> > people who think that
> > matter follows laws of nature, I don't see what
> > you're aiming at (if anything).
>
>Sheesh. You said the mental part of the universe
>follows natural laws [please reread what you wrote
>above]; _that's_ what I'm aiming at. I want to know
>what you mean by this.
I meant that some people may believe this, not that I do, and that's the
only way I can read what I wrote above.

What I mean by it: There could conceiveably be set of laws, similar to the
laws of physics, that determine the developments and interactions of the
mental part of the universe, and presumeably it's interactions with the
material part too.

>
> > We seem to've been talking rather past one another.
>
>Could be. If we keep at it, I'll catch your train next
>time it rounds the bend.
We'll hope so.

                                                   Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Reply