Quote:
Cejuan:
I didn't get the impression that to_hobbes was intending any deception. When he said "That is, you think there is a God, but he does not influence the universe." I can see how if you look at it right this could be considered a naturalistic world-view. Others could make valid arguments against this, but in saying "he does not influence the universe" he is clearly saying that we should base our lives on naturalistic phenomenon and not look to the supernatural for assistance. I'd be completely comfortable with such a person calling themselves a Bright if it so suited them and I've never seen any reason to believe that the Brights Movement would think it necessary to keep such a person out of the movement. This is what they mean in the explanation of their 2nd principle when they say.
To_hobbes:
I simply mentioned deism as an example of how it is possible to believe that God exists and also have a naturalistic worldview. This is because believing as deists do that God does not influence the universe, and assuming you believe no other mystical forces influence the universe, then this fits the definition a naturalistic worldview, as I understand it.
|
I finally see the problem here. You both fail to understand the term “mystical”. Mystical does not mean an ability to influence the universe, it simply means “Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.” And mysticism is defined as follows: “A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.” No where in the definition does it state an ability to influence the natural universe. It is just merely a presence that is not apparent to the intelligence or the senses.
Now, the brights website
clearly states as follows:
“Think about your own worldview to decide if it is free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the description above, then you are, by definition, a bright!”
Now follow me here: The brights clearly state that in order to be a bright, you need to be free of the belief of mystical deities. This means free of a belief in a God that is not apparent to the intelligence or senses and is beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension. This completely shoots down your personal theory that it is possible to believe that a God exists that cannot influence the universe and also be a bright.
Another quote from the brights website that corroborates this:
"On the whole, the notion refers to an individual's belief system related to concepts such as the meaning and purpose of life, existence after death, the
presence of deities,..."
Note they specify the mere presence of deities without any regard to whether or not they have any influence over the universe.
I really hate to burst your bubble guys, but it seems that not everyone can be considered a bright. It is very specific about a non belief in God which makes it an atheist organization that deftly and intentionally was able to include agnostics in its "flowery new age redefinition". Again, I have nothing against atheists wishing to positively redefine themselves, make peace with "supers" and have a positive impact on society, but dont make this out to be something that it is not i.e. an all inclusive organization that anyone can join that will save the world!
At this point, I take back my original claim of deception and venture to chalk it up as an honest mistake on your part based on being blinded by your enthusiasm for this shiny new movement you became members of and of your subsequent zeal to enlist new recruits.
