Dissociative Identity Disorder and the Soul

[ProfessorDavey]

[quote author=Walt Zingmatilder link=topic=19003.msg846172#msg846172 date=165183120

.....
Secondly look up the definition of theism.

Given the description of God in theism, creator and maintainer of the universe, That description is not a 'true for me only' declaration.

These definitions are all so much white noise. They  might have a bit more relevance if the belief system involved were specified. Is Hinduism a theism? Is  gnosticism? They have very different views of God from the one you've described. No doubt you're suggesting theism is the superior concept (it's from the Greek, innit, and the uvver's only from the Latin)

Indeed - what Vlad is trying to do is cherry pick the gods that he thinks are part of theism and ignore other gods. Theism applies to all gods, not just some.

So I mentioned the deist creator but non-interventionist god - if you believe in that god then you are theist (and deist).

But there are also non-creator gods in many polytheist traditions - if you believe in that god you are also theist (but not deist). I accept that theism is often used as a kind of byword for people who believe in the judo-christian kind of god, but it doesn't have to. Believe in one or more gods (of any flavour) and you are theist.

[jeremyp]

Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.

Yes, but if God just is then it destroys Alan's argument that intelligence needs a creator.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey Vlad - you really are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Yes I am well aware of what deism is, but it appears that you do not understand what the strict definition of theism is - see below.
Yup, you mean like this one - I trust you consider the Cambridge Dictionary to be authoritative:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theism

'belief in the existence of a god or gods'

I derived mine from the Oxford Dictionary. There is still the question whether the proposition ''God exists'' isn't a philosophical position.

I believe that the Cambridge dictionary derives it's meaning as the opposite of atheism. Again isn't 'God does not exist' a philosophical proposition?

Now I know that some definitions add some exemplars of the type of god, but that isn't part of the strict definition at all and is both superfluous and also confusing. So theism (see definition) is belief in the existence of god or gods. Deism is a sub-category of theism in which the god is non-interventionist. But a deism believes in the existence of that non interventionalist god and is therefore also theist.

And you can see the non-sense of trying to define theism in the context of a particular type of god alone when you look at the flip-side of theism, which is of course atheism. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of god or gods, not someone who does not believe in a god who created the universe and maintains it, but believes in a god that does not maintain the world.

So image someone who fervently believes that there is a god, but that although that god created the world, having done so that god does not intervene in the world. That person isn't atheist, that person is clearly theist (as they believe in the existence of that god) but also deist.
Show me exactly in the definition of theism I quote above the part that described the type of god ... of yes, there isn't one.

We need your full thesis on how theism is not a philosophical proposition given that many, many philosophical positions are beliefs rather than established facts.

[jeremyp]

Philosophical naturalism is not hot on why there is a universe

Neither is theism. Theists definitely have opinions on why there is a universe, but they have no way to verify if their opinions are correct.

[ProfessorDavey]

I derived mine from the Oxford Dictionary.

Interesting that you don't actually provide that definition ... hmmm, wonder why that might be.

So let me help you out - this from my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary:

Theism: Belief in god(s), esp, in one God as creator and supreme ruler of universe.

Note esp. meaning especially - note not exclusively. As as I pointed out theism is often, more colloquially, associated with the judo-christian god, but the Oxford definition is clear that it doesn't have to be. So as both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries confirm - if you believe in a god or gods you are a theist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting that you don't actually provide that definition ... hmmm, wonder why that might be.

So let me help you out - this from my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary:

Theism: Belief in god(s), esp, in one God as creator and supreme ruler of universe.

Note esp. meaning especially - note not exclusively. As as I pointed out theism is often, more colloquially, associated with the judo-christian god, but the Oxford definition is clear that it doesn't have to be. So as both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries confirm - if you believe in a god or gods you are a theist.

This is taken from the current Online Oxford Dictionary:

theism
[ˈθiːɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.Compare with deism.
"there are many different forms of theism".

But whichever way one cuts it these are still philosophical propositions and within the definition of theism so there is no ''merely'' about it IMV.

You continue flip flopping between focussing on whether theism is merely belief in God or whether it constitutes a world view or philosophy if you like.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither is theism. Theists definitely have opinions on why there is a universe, but they have no way to verify if their opinions are correct.

Which is also true of any opinion on why there is a universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is taken from the current Online Oxford Dictionary:

theism
[ˈθiːɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.Compare with deism.
"there are many different forms of theism".

Link please, because that isn't what I see on the online Oxford English Dictionary (which is a sign-in). This is what I get:

theism, n.1

Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix. Compare French théisme (Voltaire).
(a) gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.  (b) Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n.  (c) Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n.  (d) esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

So the general definition is as I've described - believe in god (described in this definition as deities) - there are some narrower definitions, one of which is about monotheism. A further one is clear that deism can be considered to be theism, and final a more limited definition that distinguishes theism from deism and from the general definition - again using especially, not specifically or exclusively.

You seem to be focusing only on (d) which is no more relevant than (c) but definitely less relevant than the general definition.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is taken from the current Online Oxford Dictionary:

theism
[ˈθiːɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.Compare with deism.
"there are many different forms of theism".

But I much prefer the other definition of theism - also from the Oxford English Dictionary:

theism, n.2

A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart

[ProfessorDavey]

But I much prefer the other definition of theism - also from the Oxford English Dictionary:

theism, n.2

A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart

Oops - missed out the last bit:

...caused by excessive tea-drinking.

[Dicky Underpants]

theism, n.1

Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix. Compare French théisme (Voltaire).
(a) gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.  (b) Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n.  (c) Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n.  (d) esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

Interesting linguistic point re Voltaire - can the distinction which Vlad wishes to make only be made in English (the language of God, of course)? The OED refers to Voltaire as a théiste - which I suppose we would translate as a deist. Mais il était théiste.

[jeremyp]

Which is also true of any opinion on why there is a universe.

But only religionists claim to know their opinions are true without evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But only religionists claim to know their opinions are true without evidence.

Seems a bit sweeping.

[jeremyp]

Seems a bit sweeping.

But it is the critical point. Lots of scientists have speculated about why there's a universe rather than not, but none of them claim that they know their opinions are the truth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it is the critical point. Lots of scientists have speculated about why there's a universe rather than not, but none of them claim that they know their opinions are the truth.

Professionally scientists should of course focus on science but more than once have scientists been caught focusing on their atheism. Dawkins, Carroll ,Krauss....the usual suspects.

[jeremyp]

Professionally scientists should of course focus on science but more than once have scientists been caught focusing on their atheism. Dawkins, Carroll ,Krauss....the usual suspects.

So what? Are scientists not allowed to talk about non science?

[ProfessorDavey]

You continue flip flopping between focussing on whether theism is merely belief in God or whether it constitutes a world view or philosophy if you like.

No I don't - theism in its standard meaning (belief that god or gods exist) isn't a philosophy, merely an assertion that something exists. And if this claim is objective, i.e. exists for everyone not merely in the minds of believers, then it needs to be backed up with evidence as it will be either objectively true or objectively false. As such the existence or non-existence of god/gods isn't a matter of opinion it is an objective fact.

The point with philosophies is that the aren't something that can be proved to be objectively true of objectively false - that's the whole point, they are opinions/ideas etc that help us understand the world, but aren't objectively true or false.

There are, of course, theistic philosophies, but they are distinct from theism itself albeit a theistic philosophy would be based on a presumption of the existence of god. In themselves those philosophies cannot be proved right or wrong, and indeed don't really rely on god actually existing, but on those positing them to believe that god exists.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what? Are scientists not allowed to talk about non science?

Apparently not - I'd better shut up then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apparently not - I'd better shut up then.

1. Yes of course they are allowed.
2.You said it.