Chapter 1
The Fallacy of Misplaced Deity
Does God exist? Yes, no or other. Or does ___ exist? Yes, no
or other. We should have an idea of what god is before we can answer the
question.
Defining God with a definition that all can agree to is the
first problem. I will use this definition; God or god(s) is whatever you think
God or god(s) is with the same basic certainty of reality as other things in a
category you place God or god(s) in, existence, non-existence or other. Hopefully you agree with whatever you think
God or god(s) is but now you must provide the same basic certainty of reality
as other things in a category you have identified God or god(s) with, that is existence,
non-existence or other. Until you provide that same basic certainty of reality
as other things in a category you will be committing a categorical fallacy, no
matter what you think God or god(s) is by faith or otherwise.
The Fallacy of Misplaced Deity is the error of applying an
improper category of reality to Deity, which I have called the Fallacy of
Misplaced Deity. Examples: Theists want to place God or god(s) in the
categorical reality of things that are existent and Atheists want to place God
or god(s) in the categorical reality of things that are non-existent or still
others who would place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of things that
are impossible. It is not possible to place God or god(s) in these categories
with the same basic certainty of the things already in those categories; ergo
to place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of the existent or
non-existent or impossible things is the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity. However it
would not be a fallacy to place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of
things that are possible or in the categorical reality of things that are an
alternate reality, because it can be done with the same basic certainty as the
things already in those categories.
Committing or not committing the Fallacy of Misplaced
Deity:
1.
God exist, no God exist or God is impossibility:
a.
God has not been defined as an exist thing, on
the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of existent
things. For example; plans, trains, automobiles, living being, thoughts,
emotions and the earth are defined as existent things but God has no definition
in the same way as these things. That is there is no definition of God that is
supported by an identifiable thing that indicates that it’s an existent God. Because what
God is, is not definable in this way, it is then the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity
to define God or god(s) as an existing thing.
b.
God has not been defined as a non-exist thing,
on the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of non-existent
things. For example; fictional thing and beings, destroyed things and dead
beings are non-existent things but God has no definition in the same way as these
non-existent things. That is there is no definition of God that is supported by
an identifiable non-existent thing which indicates that it’s a non-existent God. Because what
God is, is not definable in this way, it is then the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity
to define God or god(s) as a non-existing thing.
c.
God has not been defined as an impossible thing,
on the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of impossible
things. For example; things or beings that have contradictory definition; squire
circle, rectangle oval, no-house house, something being what it is not, but God
has no definition in the same way as these impossible things. That is there is
no definition of God that is supported by an identifiable impossible thing that
indicates that it’s an impossible God. Because what God is, is not definable in this way, it
is then the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity to define God or god(s) as an impossible
thing.
d.
To define and say that God exist, no God exist
or God is an impossibility has fallen short of meeting the same basic
level of certainty as other things in the categories of existent,
non-existent and
impossible thing in three ways; 1. God or god(s) have not been
identified as something
in our reality that corresponds to a definition in any of the three categories, 2. God or god(s) have not been identified
as something that is consistent with the reality of other things defined in the
three categories and 3. God or god(s) have
not been identified as something that can be satisfactorily defined within any of the three categories.
2. God is a possibility or God and alternate reality:
a. God can be
defined as a possible thing, on the same basic level of certainty as other
things in the category of possible things. For example; possible; plans,
trains, automobiles, living beings or other realities are in the category of possible
by default just as God or gods can be possible by default, , until they are
found to be identifiable in some other category.
d. As a sub-category of possibility, God may
be partially defined as an alternate reality, on the same basic level of
certainty as other things in the category of alternate reality. Alternate
reality in the sense that it nether exists nor is non-existent but is a type of
reality none the less. Examples; Laws that express the way Reality works, universal qualities
as permanent possibilities for things in our reality such as coldness, hotness or
redness (as determined my the nature of Reality)and godliness as a possible.
CHAPTER 2
What is Transtheism
What is Transtheism
A simple comparison can illustrate the difference between
the positions:
Theism can only be true if gods exist.
Atheism can only be true if gods do not exist.
Transtheism can be true if gods exist or not.
Definitions of Transtheism:
Simply defined, Transtheism is the belief that there is
reality and truth whether Divine beings [God, gods...] exist or not.
Specifically defined, Transtheism is belief in a system of thought, philosophical,
religious, or spiritual, that can be
held with or without a belief in Divine beings [God, gods...] .
Broadly defined,
Transtheism is a system of thought, philosophical, religious, or
spiritual, which neither is theism,
atheism, Gnosticism, nor agnosticism but is a position of belief whereby the
reality of Divine beings [God, gods...] is a mystery that is circumvented or transcended in some way.
I.
Transtheism in its rejection of theism and atheism.
As
to the question of gods’ existence, whereas theist say
god(s) exists and atheist say god(s) does not exist, either position
commits the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity, that is the error of applying an
improper categorical reality to gods; Transtheists follow other
answers to this question, Since theist cannot guarantee that it is
correct that
gods exit as other things that do exist nor can atheist guarantee that
it is correct that gods do not exist as other such things that do not
exist ;
This points to the fundamental fact that the existence or non-existence
of gods
is a mystery. Transtheism avoids the pit falls of theism and atheism by
an affirmative response to divine reality itself whether gods exist or
not .
They accept the mystery of any god like existence as a fundamental fact
within
the reality of divinity and then by acknowledging the factual
uncertainty of
the terms existence or nonexistence to describe a god like state which
can be
taken as grounds enough to reject the "certainty" of theism and
atheism.
Beyond the rejection of theism and atheism (and to a lesser
extent Gnosticism and agnosticism), the Transtheist then must respond to the question
of god's reality beyond the terms of existence or non-existence and the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity with an
alternative responses or a third proposition.
1. The Transtheist hard
response is to reject completely existence and nonexistence as reliable terms
for describing god's reality and propose another term, condition or reality as
a third proposition. Some examples:
The 9th century Catholic
theologian and philosopher, John Scotus Eriugena, Rather than a binary
classification of things into existence and non-existence, he uses a trinary
classification into super-existence, existence and non-existence. God
transcends existence and nonexistence and is the super-existent.
The philosopher/theologian
Paul Tillich stated in his Systematic Theology that "God does not
exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that
God exists is to deny him"(205). God is “the ground of all being”
and the transcendent source of existence or nonexistence.
The Cappadocian Fathers of
the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that
God exists. God is beyond existing or not existing: these "relative"
terms have no meaning where the absolute is concerned.
Bishop Kallistos (Eastern
Orthodox Church): "God is absolutely transcendent. ‘No single thing of all
that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the
supreme nature or nearness to it” (Gregory Palamas, PG 150, 1176C).
2. The Transtheist soft
response is to neither completely reject nor accept the terms existence and
nonexistence as describing god's reality, which proposes a kind of neutrality
as a third proposition. Some examples:
Confucius neither asserted nor rejected
divine beings, but finds that the supreme principle in the universe according
to Confucius is the moral law, a universal principle, omnipresent, hidden and
eternal. Following the moral principles means to conform oneself to the
will of heaven, but metaphysical speculations about heaven and the afterlife is
unimportant.
Taoism: The Tao is the single
mysterious source of all reality, it is not a God but deities and all nature is
within its control. Taoist may or may not have deities, but their core
teachings are centered on the Tao of nature not deities.
Buddhism: The existence of deities
is neither completely accepted nor denied and the question is viewed as
unimportant to the core beliefs of Buddhism. Also Buddha refused to take any
position on creation by deities or otherwise. All of existence is impermanence,
which includes deities if they exist.
Stoicism: All
things change. The Cosmos and gods all end in the purifying fire of the Logos
(eternal reason) but then are reborn again and again... Logos as the seminal
reason of creation is the source of the cosmos and gods, in this sense the
Logos is not so much "God" as it is the single source of relational
reality that transcends deity by being their source also.
3. The Transtheist
moderate response is to accept the possibility of a God or gods as a principle
of reality but not as necessarily an existent or non-existent thing, which
points at the ideal or metaphorical realities of a God or gods as a third
proposition. Some examples:
Plato: Deity is a perfect
ideal or archetype that exists with all others in the world of forms as a separate
unchanging eternal perfect reality, which is separate from our temporal
changing physical imperfect existence. Ideals, such as God or gods,
truth, beauty, goodness and so on have their own eternal reality and our
temporal physical existence is just imperfect copy’s created by a Demiurge
(a subordinate "deity" or creative force) from per-existing formless
material. The gods, if any exist in our universe would be created by the
subordinate Demiurge.
Epicurus: The gods if they exist
have no concern for us and are willingly unaware of our existence; they live
eternally in the space between the cosmos’s, in a state of divine reality and
bliss. The gods function mainly as ethical ideals or projections of what the
most blessed life would be. The universe (or more accurately a single
multiverse) has no beginning, but has always existed, and will always exist;
the multiverse is composed of cosmos’s and space. Our particular cosmos,
however, is only a temporary agglomeration of atoms, and it is only one of an
infinite number of such cosmos’s, which come into existence and then dissolve
away over and over, in the infinite space of the multiverse. Everything we do
is for the sake, ultimately of gaining pleasure for ourselves as the highest
good or happiness.
Aristotle: The cosmos (our
universe) has no beginning or ending, but is bond by space and time. God's
reality is beyond space and time and the cosmos, God does not have a body or
physical shape, but is the cause of all motion or change in the cosmos. Because
the cosmos is attracted to the unmovable reality [God], God does not actively
cause anything to happen (motion and change) in the cosmos nor does God care
about the cosmos. Everything in the cosmos has a natural function, which is its
purpose. All things are guide by this purpose or Telos.
4. The Transtheist
ignostic response is that existence and nonexistence are unsupportable and
meaningless description of a God or gods reality, which points at the
indefinite reality of a God or gods as a third proposition. Some
examples:
From the Theopedia "Negative
theology, also known as Apophatic theology, is a theological approach that
describes God by negation, speaking of God only in terms of what He is not
(apophasis) rather than presuming to describe what God is. In negative
theology, it is maintained that we can never truly define God in words. In the
end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine.
In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion
that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we
will inevitably fall short (http://www.theopedia.com/Negative_theology)."
Augustine's famous phrase from De
Trinitate: “We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what he is”.
The Summa Theologiae of Thomas
Aquinas (Western Catholic Church):”In this life what God is is unknown to us
[even] by the revelation of grace; and so [by grace] we are joined to him as to
something unknown.”
5. The Transtheist
eclectic response is that there is nothing coherently committing anyone to the
terms existence and nonexistence or other descriptions of a God or gods, this
points to our freedom at any time to select what appears to be best in various
doctrines, concepts or perceptions but not to be committed completely to our
selection, belief then is tentative and objective as the third proposition.
Some examples:
Jainism: Rejects the idea of any
creator, mentor or destroyer deity of reality, reality has always been and will
always be. The quality, state or consciousness of godliness ( or divinity) is
only one in nature. Any number of beings can take part in the general
quality of godliness and beyond. Jainism in a sense is polytheism, monotheism,
non-theism and atheism and is none of them completely. The existence of deities
is transcended by moksha a non-theistic world system above deity or
godliness, when deities transcend to moksha they are no longer deities.
Sense human can become deities they can become part of moksha. The belief
in gods is displaced by a belief in the possibility of oneself becoming a
divine, a god and beyond.
Unitarian Universalism:
"Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in
all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the
forces which create and uphold life. Words and deeds of prophetic women and men
which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice,
compassion, and the transforming power of love. Wisdom from the world's religions
which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life..."(http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/inspiration/index.shtml)
6.
Divine Transtheist
response is that divinity is a reality and the existence or
non-existence of Deity or gods is a mystery within that reality. It is
not completely true to
say that God or gods do or do not exist because we do not know if ether
proposition is completely true. Divine Transtheism rejects the certainty
of
Theism's and Atheism's propositions about existence or non-existence but
accepts the reality of divinity and its mysteries; it is then the divine
reality with its mysteries that is the third proposition. Some
examples:
Immanuel Kant: From Kant’s point of
view scientifically speaking, the existence of absolutely necessary God can be
neither proved nor disproved, not even with ontological, cosmological or
teleological rational or theological arguments. For Kent this left room for any
moral proofs that may present themselves to us, apart from science. We then may
assume on moral grounds the reality of God or gods (because of the possibility
within divinity) but the physical existence of gods is beyond Science and
relational or theological arguments and is a mystery in that regards. God's
reality on the other hand is manifest in morality and Kent argues that there is
a moral proof of God's reality. i. It is rationally and morally necessary to
attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue). ii. What we
are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain. iii. Attaining the
perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an
overarching moral order and causality. iv. Moral order and causality are only
possible if we postulate a God as their source. (See Kant 1996/1962, 240;
5/124-5)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#BasArgExeKan.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#BasArgExeKan.
C. S. Peirce in a
paper called A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God (1908) he does
not argue for the actual existence of god, but for the reality of God as a
necessary being, which is "infinitely incomprehensible". The
hypothesis of God is inevitably formulated by anyone who engages in spontaneous
reflective thought or musing about what is possible in the universe as
regulated by the necessary (physical laws are necessary realities of the
universe) in relationship to the existent physical universe. God
hypothesized in such away is a necessary mediating reality between what is
possible and what physically existent in the universe. God does not require
physical existence but is a mediating necessary reality none the less. See
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God
Mysticism is when one
experience’s divinity directly. It can have a theistic or transtheistic
sensation too it. Either way it is primarily the experience of what divinity
is, as experienced by an individual. Transtheistic (or non-theistic) mysticism
does not require a belief in the existence of God or gods to experience
divinity but can best be thought of as a wide range of practices, discourses,
texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation
and the experience of divine reality for the individual.See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/
Summary:
Transtheism is the belief that there is
reality and truth whether Divine beings [God, gods...] exist or not.
This is a powerful concept and definition in that there is no need to
validate
a belief or a system of belief based on the existence or non-existence
of a God
or god(s). But as it relates to the a fore stated six position of
Transtheism, I
would like to briefly frame them each in the light of this definition;
Hard
Transtheism posits a necessary or eternal reality (the Absolute, ground
of being, super-existence...) beyond the limitations of existing or not
existing. As such this type of reality would be there with or without a
god.
Soft Transtheism posits our reality to have permanent or eternal
properties that
exist (moral Law, Tao, realty itself being impermanent, Logos...). These
permanent or eternal properties are the governing principles of all
reality
with or without a God or gods. Moderate Transtheism posits a standard or
natural purpose for reality to advance towards (perfect form, Telos,
ultimate
happiness...). This process will continue with or without a God or gods
existing. Ignostic Transtheism posits that we are ignorant (lacking
positive
knowledge) and unable to express the true reality of God or gods in
words alone, even
if they exist or not. Eclectic Transtheism posits that freedom is true
and
something we possess and that belief should be tentative and objective
about God
or gods if they exist or not. Divine Transtheism posits divinity is an
essential part of our reality that we can take part in with or without
gods. Briefly the six positions support the belief that there is
reality and truth whether Divine beings [God, gods...] exist or not, in
three ways:
1. That there is eternal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
2.That there is temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
1. That there is eternal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
2.That there is temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
3.
That there is caprice and continuity in and
between the eternal and temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings
exist or not.
II. Theism verses Transtheism: The main focus will be on the
Transtheist response.
1. Theism verses
DivineTranstheism:
i. Core dilemma: If we
have to choose between believing in Theism or Transtheism then there must be a
core dilemma to resolve, which is “Believe in the existence of gods as being
primary (Theism) or believe in the reality of Divinity as being primary
(Transtheism)”. Stated a bit clearer, believe in the existence of gods and
thereby account for the reality of divinity, which is the theist position. Or
believe in the reality of Divinity [as a necessary principle of reality] and
account for the occurrence of divine things (such as persons, places, things, ideas
and gods), which is the transtheist position. Or we can even put it in the form
of a question “Are gods the source of divinity or is Divinity the source of
gods?”
ii. Major terms: The common
understanding of reality is that of a broader term that encompasses existence.
Also Divinity is a broader term which encompasses gods. Further, reality or
divinity are not strictly synonymous with existence or gods respectively
because existence is encompassed by the broader terms reality and gods is
encompassed by the broader term divinity. The transtheist position has a
stronger appeal when the normal relationship of these words is maintained.
However the theist position gains appeal when reality or divinity become more
or less synonymous with existence or gods respectively.
iii. A resolution: As a transtheist
I propose this formula as a resolution “There is no God or gods without
divinity and there can be divine things with or without a God or gods.” This
formula answers the dilemma and is in agreement with the common understanding,
meaning and relationship of the major terms.
The first half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the
following ways:
Conceptually gods are divine and
non-divine beings or things are not gods, divinity is necessary for godliness.
The mere possibility of gods
existing implies the reality of divinity in principle and is the reason for
there being a possibility for gods.
The possibility of gods coming into
existence, makes explicit the prior reality of divinity in principle and their
potentiality as the reason that gods are able to come into existence.
The reality of divinity does not
depend on the existence of gods because it is easily ether a reality prior too
or simultaneous with gods and is a reality upon which gods depend.
The second half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the
following ways:
Believing in the existence of gods
is equivalent to accepting the reality of divinity but accepting the reality of
divinity is not equivalent to believing in the existence of gods, because the
concept of divinity encompasses the concept of gods and other divine things but
the concept of gods is limited to God or gods only.
Divine realities can be believed
in, with or without the existence of gods because a God or gods existence or
non-existence is not required to accomplish a belief in divinity.
Divine reality does not prove that
there is or is not gods but only the possibility of a God or gods,
because it is a mystery within the reality of the divine potential as to the
degree and the possibility of attainability.
2. Theism verse Hard
Transtheism:
i. The core dilemma: The core dilemma is “Believe in the
existence of God or gods (Theism) or Believe in the alternate-existence of God
or gods (Transtheism)” or put another way believe that gods exist fundamentally
the same way we do or believe gods exist in fundamentally different ways from
ours. As a question “Are gods an existent or alternate-existent type of being?”
ii. Major terms: Existence in general means to have an
identifiable presence within our universe. Alternate-existence would then
generally mean to have an identifiable absence within our universe.
Non-existence would then generally mean to have no identifiable presence and no
identifiable absence within our universe. For example: I wake up in a hospital
(with some memory loss) and am conscience of my own presence (existence) and
the hospital room. I then notice that I have a wedding ring on my finger which
indicates the absence of my mate in the room and the possibility that there can
be a mate (alternate-existence). The doctor enters the room and tells me
it is Wednesday-Sunday and asks how I am feeling? To which I reply;
Wednesday-Sunday is a non-existent day and is not a possibility
(non-existence), I remember the days of the week now and I am feeling somewhat
better.
iii. A resolution: I propose a simple logical starting
point:
We
exist.
We
may not exist within god's presence.
Therefore god may be absent.
Likewise;
We
exist.
We
may exist within god's presence.
Therefore god may be absent.
Something which may be present is generally considered
absent until its presence is identified, therefore gods may be absent is a
correct conclusion. Because the same conclusion of absence is reached ether way
when considering the possible presence of god, the proposition that gods exist
or are non-existent can be ruled out in favor of gods are absent, in the
context of the above logical statements. Since the stronger position is that
gods are absent and connected with a universal experience of gods being absent
in the life of all human individuals (at least perceptual in their early
youth), I may infer that gods have an alternate-existence, which results in
their absence in our reality. This is a consistent reason why gods are absent
with a possibility of being present. Hard Transtheist my reach the
alternate-existence or alternate-reality in different ways but the absence of gods
in our reality to some degree or another is a common theme and the identifiable
marker of god's absence such as divinity in our reality, just like in the above
example of a wedding ring (divinity) on my finger indicates the absence of my
mate in the room or the possibility that there can be a mate, those who
experience divinity have an indicator of god like absence or god's possible alternate-existence.
3. Theism verse
Soft Transtheism:
i. The Core dilemma: Believe in the existence of God or gods
being true or believe in the plausibility of a God or gods existence. Or
believe that a God or gods existence is somehow a permanent present part of our
reality, or believe a God or gods existence is a permanent possibility of our
reality. As a question “Should we believe that gods actually exists or should
we believe in the potential for gods to exist?
ii. Major terms: Subjective belief is something personally
accepted as being true. Objective belief is accepting the plausibility of
something being true. Theism is the subjective belief that the existence
of God is true and a fact of our reality. Soft Transtheism is the objective
belief that the existence of God is plausible with the possible of being a fact
of our reality.
iii. A resolution: From a Soft Transtheist position I
would propose that objective belief is superior to subjective belief on
the question of a God or gods existing for the follow reasons.
Objective belief is superior
because it precedes or is the source of subjective belief, that is to say
before we can believe something subjectively we must believe it objectively
first. Because something must appear worthy of belief (for whatever
reasons) before it can be believed to be true. The moment we believe something
is plausible (having the possibility of being true or worthy of belief) this is
objective belief and then may be transformed into subjective belief.
Objective belief is superior
because it is more comprehensive in that it is the genus to species of beliefs
(transtheism, theism, atheism…). Objectivity about a belief allows a person a
degree of separation so that they have the freedom to change their belief for
different reasons, which is freedom to believe whatever they choose and to
change whenever they choose. In essence objective belief nether
completely accepts or rejects competing worthy beliefs, however a person my
favor one belief over others.
Objective belief is superior
in its qualities. I have presented four qualities of objective belief already
in the above description; source, comprehensiveness, freedom and change. To
this list can be added truth. The kind of truth that objective belief proposes
is possible or probable truth about God’s existence. Subjective belief proposes
assumed factual truth about God's existence. Both views are less than a
provable fact beyond any reasonable doubt but which is closer to being factual?
Subjective belief only assumes it is true and factual that gods
exist whereas objective belief observes that it is a permanent possibility that
gods can exist (a permanent possibility is when something can always occur)
which in our reality is far closer to being an actual fact than the merely
assumed. I would judge that objective belief has a closer to truth value and is
a better source for faith than subjective assumption.
4. Theism verse
Moderate Transtheism:
i. The core dilemma: Believe
in the literal appearance of gods or believe in the representative appearance
of gods. Put another way, believe that gods literally appear, do things and
speak for themselves or believe in the apparent representation of gods by
people and things in our reality. As a question “Do gods appear in our
reality or is there just representations of gods in our reality?”
ii. Major terms: For
theism's appearance is the key term, the gods must appear themselves (be
present) in our reality before observers and have the same properties of
existence as the observers. For example some theist say Jesus was God and that
he was a historically real being that appeared on earth. For the moderate
transtheist the key term is representation, which means that an action, sign,
symbol, or something stands for gods, but gods need not be present. For example
Jesus need not be God his actions represent what Christians think God would act
like, if God had been present.
iii. A resolution: From a Moderate Transtheist point of view
I would offer this solution the perfect God is an indefinite principle of
our reality. What this principle means is that no being or thing can
perfectly be God; God has no exact limits which includes perfection. Sure
beings can be God like or approach being something like God but nothing can
ever achieve being the perfect ideal God. All gods, godly beings and so
on are then representations of the ideal God. If something could achieve
being the ideal "God" it would at that moment be something other than
God, because at that moment it would be something definite not an indefinite
ideal. Representations are the only kind of manifestation of an ideal God in
our reality, as a consequence of the proposition that "the perfect God
is an indefinite principle of our reality". This proposition is
support by the following:
Who or what the perfect God is has
not been defined by direct physical evidence or its public appearance. On this
point its definition is physically indefinite, which supports the indefinite
description of the proposition.
The possibility of something
approaching an ideal perfect God is real but too how close a degree is
indefinite and the real possibility of approaching an ideal is the actual
empirical force behind the proposition.
The only examinable evidence of the
perfect God is representational; preachers, prophets, priests and clergy are
God’s human representatives, signs, symbols, holy books and scriptures are
God’s recorded representative, the universe and our world is said to represent
God’s creator status, god-like men (Moses, Jesus, Mohamed…) are said to
represent the will of God, even gods or mythological beings have been
considered imperfect representations of an ideal God. All of this
representation points to one fact; we only have an indefinite representation of
an ideally perfect God. Therefore the perfect God is an indefinite principle of
our reality and by default a god or deities of any kind is a representation of
something indefinite and ideal.
5. Theism verse
Ignostic Transtheism:
i. The
core dilemma: This dilemma will be about the knowledge that humans may possess
about gods; Believe the so call positive knowledge of gods existence that
theism offers or believe the so call negative knowledge of gods reality that
ignostic transtheism offers. Expanding it a bit, believe the claims of gnostic
theist that their theology is direct knowledge about gods existence or believe
the claims of ignostic transtheist that their theology is indirect knowledge about
gods reality. As a question “Do we have positive knowledge about
gods existence or do we have negative knowledge about gods reality?”
ii. Major team:
Knowledge will be understood to mean justified true belief. However
the possibility of error or fallibility may still remain with a particular
knowledge; depending on how well it has been justified as being true enough for
belief. Some examples of knowledge;
The possible qualities or
properties that something has such as its hardness, a diamond is hard and water
is less hard (soft) but water can be hard when it is frozen. The knowledge of
qualities (hardness) is a justified true belief because we and the objects of
our surrounding reality demonstrate having these qualities.
The actual reaction or relationship
of things to each other, a ball bounces up off a floor or we see the stares as
a reaction to their light that has reach the earth. The knowledge that real
things react with each other is a justified true belief because we and the
objects of our surrounding reality demonstrate that they do have reaction with
each other.
The mediating principles or laws that
guide our reality now and in the future. Gravity; state as a law, that all
physical bodies attract each other. As now, so in the future we will be
attracted and held on earth by gravity or if we all hold a stone in our
out-starched hands and by releasing the stones they will all fall to the earth
today and in the future, according to the principle or law of gravity. The
knowledge of mediating principles is a justified true belief because we and the
objects of our surrounding reality demonstrate through our qualities and
reactions with each other predicable constant outcomes as principles or laws.
iii. A resolution: I will say Ignostic
Transtheism starts with what is known or negative knowledge “The
knowledge of what gods are not”. Gods are not humans; to be human is
not being a god, which is a well justified true belief that is knowledge based
on subjective and objective experience. But what about the gnostic theist
claim to have knowledge of gods’ existence beyond one's own existence? We
know what existence means for us and other things; to have existence a thing
has properties or qualities, has reactions with other like objects and is
governed by laws. I would agree that it is possible that there may be a
kind of reality outside these limitations. However these limitations apply to
the known universe and the universe has not informed us that it is a god and
the gods of theist appear to be absent. It would not be an unfair assessment to
say that what gnostic theist call knowledge is more or less conjecture. So back
to the resolution (“The knowledge of what gods are not”) in this
instance it brings us to choices between; a justified reasons for ignoring the
question of god's existence, follow the above method of knowing what gods are
not till we find our way to what gods are or accept our ignorance of gods as
the final state of our knowledge at this point in time. All three choices imply
that gnostic theism's are not in a possession of a well justified true belief
or positive knowledge of gods existence. We are left with our negative knowledge,
which is “The knowledge of what gods are not”.
6. Theism verse Eclectic Transtheism:
i. The core
dilemma: Believe that theism's accurately describe gods or believe
that further descriptions are needed about gods. Put another way; believe that
theism's possess actual knowledge that supports only their descriptions of gods
or believe that there is possible knowledge that supports other descriptions of
gods. In the form of a question; Are theism's the only way to understand what
gods are or are there other ways to understanding gods?
ii. Major perceptions:
Theism's propagate the perception that they possess sufficient knowledge and
understand to be the final authorities and only avenue on what God or gods are.
Eclectic Transtheism propagate the perception that it is open to discovery and
that one is free to use whatever sources, doctrines and methods to understand
and know what God or gods are.
iii. A resolution:
Eclectic Transtheism is a method or approach using the best of whatever
sources, doctrines or methods it can to arrive at a belief or a system of
beliefs. Gnostic Theism's generally claims their knowledge of gods comes from
unique revelations granted to only a few individuals, this can be taken into
account as a source. The resolution for Eclectic Transtheism needs to start
from something known, a type of knowledge accessible to anyone. I will
introduce a new term for this kind of knowledge; Itnosticism:
It-knowledge: Referent knowledge or knowledge that refers to something; A
justified true belief that refers to something. An example: We know that
it, the unknown universe is out there.
Unlike an Ignostic that say's the word God has no meaning, the Itnostic say's the word God has meaning because it refers to or points at something, the word God has an it value or meaning. The Itnostic knows that it the word God refers to or points at the possibility, a probable or actual reality of God. It (God) is referent to not descriptive of something. And unlike the Gnostic theists which claim to have definitive descriptive knowledge of God, the Itnostic transtheist can view the gnostics knowledge or theologies as referent and not descriptive knowledge. The Itnostic can claim affirmative referent knowledge of something as a starting point for more certain types of knowledge.
Unlike an Ignostic that say's the word God has no meaning, the Itnostic say's the word God has meaning because it refers to or points at something, the word God has an it value or meaning. The Itnostic knows that it the word God refers to or points at the possibility, a probable or actual reality of God. It (God) is referent to not descriptive of something. And unlike the Gnostic theists which claim to have definitive descriptive knowledge of God, the Itnostic transtheist can view the gnostics knowledge or theologies as referent and not descriptive knowledge. The Itnostic can claim affirmative referent knowledge of something as a starting point for more certain types of knowledge.
Itnosticism is not limited to the question of God or Divine
beings alone but has a much broader scope. As was indicated in the above
example of Itnosticism “We know that it, the unknown universe is out there” or on
a related subject; whatever the ultimate source of all reality is it is something
we need more knowledge about. Even in everyday life, the knowledge of what we
have done and what we are doing indicates and refers to a future state for our
life, the future in this sense is an Itnosticism which means we have some referent knowledge of it (future), by
what actions we take and our sciences.
III. Atheism verses Transtheism: The main focus will be on the
Transtheist response.
1. Atheism verses Divine
Transtheism:
i. Core dilemma: If we
have to choose between accepting Atheism or Transtheism then there must be a
core dilemma to resolve, which is “Have a lack or no belief in the existence of
gods (Atheism) or believe in the reality of Divinity (Transtheism)”. Stated a
bit clearer, believe there are no grounds for accepting the existence of gods
that is the source for the reality of divinity, which is the atheist position.
Or believe in the reality of Divinity [as a necessary principle of reality] and
account for the occurrence of divine things (such as persons, places, things,
ideas and gods), which is the transtheist position. Or we can even put it in
the form of a question “No gods means no divinity or is Divinity in principle
the source of divine realties?”
ii. Major terms: The common
understanding of reality is that of a broader term that encompasses existence.
Also Divinity is a broader term which encompasses gods and other divine things.
Further, reality or divinity is not strictly synonymous with existence or gods
respectively because existence is encompassed by the broader term reality and
gods is encompassed by the broader term Divinity. The transtheist position has
a stronger appeal when the normal relationship of these words is maintained.
However the atheist position gains appeal when reality or divinity becomes more
or less synonymous with existence or gods respectively.
iii. A resolution: As a transtheist
I propose this formula as a resolution “There is no God or gods without
divinity and there can be divine things with or without a God or gods.”
This formula answers the dilemma and is in agreement with the common
understanding, meaning and relationship of the major terms.
The first half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the
following ways:
Conceptually if gods exist they are
divine, divinity is necessary for the idea of godliness.
The mere possibility of gods
existing implies the reality of divinity in principle and is the reason for
there being a possibility for gods.
The possibility of gods coming into
or existing makes explicit the prior reality of divinity in principle and their
potentiality as the reason that gods are able to come into or exist.
The reality of divinity does not
depend on the existence of gods because it is easily ether a reality prior too
or simultaneous with gods and is a reality upon which gods depend. The removal
of gods does not remove the possibility or actuality of divinity in any forms.
The second half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the
following ways:
Asserting the non-existence of gods
is not equivalent to asserting the non-reality of divinity but accepting the
reality of divinity is not equivalent to believing in the existence of gods,
because the concept of divinity encompasses the concept of gods and other
divine things but the concept of gods is limited to God or gods only.
Divine realities can be believed
in, with or without the existence of gods because a God or god’s existence or
non-existence is not required to accomplish a belief in divinity.
Divine reality does not prove that
there is or is not gods but only the possibility of a God or gods, because
it is a mystery within the reality of the divine potential as to the degree and
the possibility of attainability.
2. Atheism verse Hard Transtheism:
i. The core dilemma: The core dilemma is “Accept the non-existence
of God or gods (Atheism) or Believe in the alternate-existence of God or gods (Hard
Transtheism)” or put another way believe that gods non-exist is fundamentally
the same as other non-exist things or believe gods exist in fundamentally
different ways from ours. As a question “Are gods a non-existent or
alternate-existent type of being?”
ii. Major terms: Existence in general means to have an
identifiable presence within our universe. Alternate-existence would then
generally mean to have an identifiable absence within our universe.
Non-existence would then generally mean to have no identifiable presence and no
identifiable absence within our universe. For example: I wake up in a hospital
(with some memory loss) and am conscience of my own presence (existence) and
the hospital room. I then notice that I have a wedding ring on my finger which
indicates the absence of my mate in the room and the possibility that there can
be a mate (alternate-existence). The doctor enters the room and tells me
it is Wednesday-Sunday and asks how I am feeling? To which I reply;
Wednesday-Sunday is a non-existent day and is not a possibility
(non-existence), I remember the days of the week now and I am feeling somewhat
better.
iii. A resolution: I propose a simple logical starting
point:
We
exist.
We
may not exist within god's presence.
Therefore god may be absent.
Likewise;
We
exist.
We
may exist within god's presence.
Therefore god may be absent.
Something which may be present is generally considered
absent until its presence is identified, therefore gods may be absent is a
correct conclusion. Because the same conclusion of absence is reached ether way
when considering the possible presence of god, the proposition that gods exist
or are non-existent can be ruled out in favor of gods are absent, in the
context of the above logical statements. Since the stronger position is that
gods are absent and connected with a universal experience of gods being absent
in the life of all human individuals (at least perceptual in their early
youth), I may infer that gods have an alternate-existence, which results in
their absence in our reality. This is a consistent reason why gods are absent
with a possibility of being present. Hard Transtheist my reach the
alternate-existence or alternate-reality in different ways but the absence of
gods in our reality to some degree or another is a common theme and the
identifiable marker of god's absence such as divinity in our reality, just like
in the above example of a wedding ring (divinity) on my finger indicates the
absence of my mate in the room or the possibility that there can be a mate,
those who experience divinity have an indicator of god’s absence with god's
possible alternate-existence. Atheism agrees with the absence of God or
gods as We exist.
A stronger inference can be made for an alternate-reality over
non-existence of God or gods with a slightly different logical statement.
We
exist.
We do
not exist within god's presence.
Therefore god is absent.
Or
We
exist.
We
cannot exist within god's presence.
Therefore god is absent.
The assumed Non-existence of god is not a logical conclusion
for these statements but absence is and is open to an alternate-reality as the
reason.
3. Atheism verse Soft Transtheism:
i. The Core dilemma: Accept the non-existence of God or gods
as being true or believe in the plausibility of a God or gods. Or believe that
a God or gods possibility is somehow a permanent present part of our reality. As
a question “Should we accept that gods actually do not exist or should we
believe in the potential for gods?
ii. Major terms: Subjective belief is something personally
accepted as being true. Objective belief is accepting the plausibility of
something being true with and ever presents possibility that it can change.
Abject belief accepts the truth of something being true because it is unlikely to
be otherwise. Atheism is the subjective position that the non-existence of God
is true and a fact of our reality. Soft Transtheism is the objective or abject
belief that the existence of God is plausible as a possibility of our reality.
iii. A resolution: From a Soft Transtheist position I
would propose that objective or abject belief is superior to subjective
belief on the question of a God or gods possibility for the follow reasons.
Objective or abject belief is
superior because it precedes or is the source of subjective belief, that is to
say before we can believe something subjectively we must believe it objectively
or abjectively first. Because something must appear worthy of belief (for
whatever reasons) before it can be believed to be true. The moment we believe
something is plausible (having the possibility of being true or worthy of
belief) this is objective or abject belief and then may be transformed into
subjective belief.
Objective or abject belief is
superior because it is more comprehensive in that it is the genus to species of
beliefs (transtheism, theism, atheism…). Objectivity about a belief allows a
person a degree of separation so that they have the freedom to change their
belief for different reasons, which is freedom to believe whatever they choose
and to change whenever they choose. In essence objective belief nether
completely accepts or rejects competing worthy beliefs, however a person my
favor one belief over others. Abject belief is superior because it is more
comprehensive in that it is the genus to species of beliefs (transtheism,
theism, atheism…). Abjective belief does not allow much freedom to reject the
truth of something. The truth of something is so preserved that there appears
no way it could be otherwise, so that one is force to accept it as true
(1+1=2).
Neither completely asserts nor rejects the
existence of deities
No
proof is required to neither
completely asserts nor rejects the existence of deity. It does imply an
objective position or neutrality. And is an excellent way to be open to
evidence in whatever form one might accept. However one could take it as their
final position and make it a subjective position of faith or reason. As
such one is not required to prove their fundamental position as being correct
or incorrect. One can provisionally
accept the existence of deity and acknowledge the possibility of its non-existence. The main provision is to neither completely
assert nor reject the existence of deity. By neither completely believing nor
denying the existence of deity, one is in a relative state of neutrality or objectivity;
you can believe to a point and not believe to a point but not to the point of certainty.
Is it true or false that gods exist? I would say that the question is better stated “Is X true or false? Without defining, perceiving or experiencing X exactly (X=gods exist) one is left with only a contingent possibility. This is my Transtheism starting position, X is a known possibility. That is to say X is something not known to be true or false but is neither. Sure theist and atheist would like to move the question out of the realm of possibility to a factual position that says gods exist or not. But if something is a possibility it is neither true nor false but in a neutral state. God as a possibility is neither existing nor non-exist but is a neutral actuality, as far as possibilities are factual actualities. I view gods as neutral realities between existence and non-existence having factual actuality. I then neither completely assert nor reject the existence of X.
Do gods exist as we experience existence? The theist answer
to this question is definitely yes; god’s exist and are of supreme importance.
Transtheist acknowledge the possibility of gods existing but importance is
another matter. But can a person believe that gods exist and not be a theist? There
is more than one kind of belief; the subjective belief of theists that the
existence of gods is to be considered a fact of their personal reality or there
is the objective belief of transtheist which can assume the existence of gods as
a provisional fact of reality, personal or general. Yes, someone can objectively
believe in gods without being a theist. Transtheism is then, distinct from
theism in the character of its belief and its attitude about the existence
deity, on this point.
An
objective belief can merely assume or acknowledge the possibility or
probability of a belief, but neither completely asserts nor rejects the
complete correctness of a belief, which means freedom to participate in other
belief but not clinging to a single subjective belief. A subjective belief assert the complete
correctness of a belief were as objective belief can assert or assume the possible
or probable correctness of a belief to some degree. Objectivity in belief
allows a person a degree of separation so that they have the freedom to change
their belief for different reasons. This is important because a belief is an
accepted or assumed mode of thought which influences the mind and its actions.
This places a person in control of their beliefs as objective tools rather than
the person being a tool of a subjective belief.
Theism and atheism are subjective beliefs, Transtheism as an objectivity
belief is categorically different and is not a theism or atheism.
To neither completely asserts nor rejects the
existence of deity, is to allow objectivity in belief but it can also be a
position of neutrality about the question of gods’ existence, by first
acknowledging the fallibility of answering the question.
This fallibility in principle is that theism, atheism or agnosticism could be wrong about their
beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of gods’ existence. Because
fallibilism, practically means that people
cannot attain absolute certainty concerning questions of fact. Next, the
transtheist can assert that the question of gods’ existence is neutral ground
or a no man’s land; No one has absolute right to claim their answer is correct;
the correct position is that it is neutral ground or a no man’s land, factually;
theism, atheism and agnosticism are not correct answers. However, the
transtheist can take the neutral position and acknowledge the possibility of knowing gods exist , as the correct position.
Let’s assume for the moment that we human are not totally at fault with our
fallible knowledge. In reality we can
acknowledge at least this much, that there is a possibility that gods exist.
Based on that fact, one is justified in neither completely asserting nor
rejecting the existence of gods. Next, at
least this much can be acknowledged about gods, they can be absent. The
existence or non-existence of gods is not an everyday directly observable fact
but the absence of gods is an everyday observable fact. Based on the fact of absence, one is justified in
neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of gods
Now, these
two facts do not support theism, atheism or agnosticism. However transtheism is
supported by these two facts as a neutral position.
No comments:
Post a Comment