Tuesday, February 19, 2013

DOES GOD EXIST?


 
THE NEUTRAL POSITION OF TRANSTHEISM

[Work in progress]



Transtheism in a broad sense is a system of thought, philosophical, religious or spiritually which neither is theism, atheism nor agnosticism. In a narrower sense, transtheism is a position or belief that the existence of deity is circumvented or transcended in some way.  Specifically Transtheism is belief in a system of thought, philosophical, religious or spiritually, with or without deities or gods, that divinity is attainable.

Generally transtheism has an objective pragmatic belief in the potential existence of deity but does not have deity as the leading principle of its system of thought.



S: Statement.

R: Response.




S: Does god exist? How does a transtheist respond?


R: God is a neutral reality. Let me explain the idea of neutral reality, it is a reality that is a possibility and principle of Reality in general. Numbers are neutral realities in that they are possibilities and principle of Reality in general. So then god exists neutrally as a possibility and principle of Reality in general but I am not say that god exists or do not exist as an object in reality. That is the position of theist or atheist.





S: Why can’t theism, atheism or agnosticism prove their answers on the question of God(s) existence?



R: Because the overwhelming proof they need is not being found or provided for their position. But why should this be?


Let’s assume for the moment that we human are not totally at fault with our fallible knowledge.  As we turn to nature or the universe we can acknowledge at least this much, that there is a possibility that God(s) exist. Based on that fact, one is justified in neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of God(s). This is the neutral position of my transtheism; it is not the position of theism, atheism or agnosticism.


Next we turn to God(s), at least this much can be acknowledged about God(s), they can be absent. The existence or non-existence of God(s) is not an observable fact but the absence of God(s) is an observable fact. Based on the fact of absence, one is justified in neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of God(s). Again this is the neutral position of my transtheism; it is not the position of theism, atheism or agnosticism.


Now, theism, atheism or agnosticism is positions that cannot be supported by the two facts that we have presented. However transtheism is supported by these facts as a neutral position. Why can’t theism, atheism or agnosticism prove their answers on the question of God(s) existence? Because their answers assumes more than the facts allow.



S: What is Transtheism and how is it different from theism, atheism or agnosticism? 

R: Transtheism is a philosophical, religious or spiritually neutral position beyond theism, atheism or agnosticism. Let me illustrate. Does God exist? Theist; yes, Atheist; no, Agnostic; unknown and Transtheist; neutral, they are all different from each other but transtheism is a flexible neutral position.

 Transtheism neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). This implies the fallibility of answering the question of God(s) existence. This fallibility in principle is that theism, atheism or agnosticism could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of God(s) existence. Because fallibility, practically means that people cannot attain absolute certainty concerning questions of fact. [4]

However transtheism as a position accepts the justification in having the freedom to flexible tentative judgment, belief or faith. Not the infallible fix or final belief of theism, atheism or agnosticism. It is in that sense that Transtheism asserts that the question of God(s) existence [or some ultimate reality], is neutral ground or a no man’s land; No one has absolute right to claim the correct answer and that is what the correct answer should be. Transtheism in its simple form attempts to defend the position of neutral ground or no man’s land as the correct position.

S:  Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. [1] How is transtheism different?

R: Transtheist neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). Transtheism is about having the freedom to a flexible tentative judgment, belief or faith as to whether a God(s) exists or not. Transtheist would say that we cannot have absolute certainty in knowing or not knowing that any God(s) exist or not.  But we are free to have a tentative position or belief on the question.

S: Strong agnosticism means “I cannot know whether a God(s) exists or not, and neither can you." [1]

R: Transtheist neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). So a transtheist would neither completely asserts nor rejects the possibility of knowing or the possibility that someone knows whether a God(s) exists or not to some degree. But what may be known and someone might know is the consistent possibility that God(s) can exist. However not knowing whether a God(s) exists or not, this does not exclude one from having a free flexible tentative judgment or belief, just not a final judgment or belief. Sense this kind of agnosticism completely rejects the possibility of knowing the existence of God(s), transtheism is opposed to it.

S: Weak agnosticism would say "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out." Therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available [1]

R: A transtheist neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). But I can have a tentative judgment or belief. Not knowing would not keep one from having a tentative judgment or belief but not knowing may keep someone from having a complete or final judgment or belief. However withholding judgment is an option for transtheist, so long as it is a tentative position. It is possible to be a transtheist tentative agnostic.

S: The Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism is the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. [1]







R:  Saying there is no proof is an indirect way of saying it is unknown that God(s) exist or not. If a deity does exist and it appears unconcerned, that does not remove the possibility that it can become or is concerned. The so called “unconcerned” is a way of allowing us our freedom of thought and action within the natural order of the universe. The deity is putting as high a priority on our freedom as it does its own. From a transtheist point of view it appears to be the will of God(s) and a condition of nature that we cannot answer the question of their existence but that it should remain neutral ground or no man’s land. Like a thorn in our psych to remind us of the possibility of divinity. Either way we are still free to have a flexible tentative judgment or belief about that deity’s existence.



S: Agnostic theism: The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. [1] How is transtheism different from this point of view?

R: True, transtheism is not about a claim to absolutely know deities exist but is about neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s).  It also is about placing tentative belief over final belief. It is possible to be a transtheistic tentative theist.  

S: Agnostic atheism: The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist. [1]

R: Again transtheism is not about a claim to absolutely know deities exist or not but is about neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). It is also about placing tentative non-belief over complete non-belief. It is also possible to be a transtheist tentative atheist.

S: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. [2]

R: Transtheism is about placing tentative non-belief over complete non-belief. It is also possible to be a transtheist tentative atheist. However if the atheist claims that rejection of belief is the absolutely right answer to the question of God(s) existence, clearly transtheism is opposed to that view. 

S: Atheism In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. [2]

R: Transtheist neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). Sense this kind of atheism completely rejects the existence of God(s), transtheism is opposed to it.

S: Theism in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. [3]

R: Transtheist neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). Sense this kind of theism completely asserts the existence of God(s), transtheism is opposed to it.

S: Summarize the Transtheist position.

R: Transtheism is opposed to any view that claims an absolute answer to the question of God(s) existence. Because of the implied fallibilism in the view of transtheism itself to neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s). In that we cannot attain absolute certainty concerning the fact of God(s) existence or the fact of its knowableness. It is for that reason that Transtheist believe that the question of God(s) existence is neutral ground or a no man’s land and that this is the correct position to take. However a tentative or secondary belief is justifiable in the quest to test other answers.








But Transtheism attempts to defend the position of neutral ground by neutralizing all other positions, generally in three ways:


1.       Passive neutral; by trying to eliminate as much opposition as it can through agreement to find a unified neutralized area. This generally creates objective areas.


2.       Aggressive neutral; by trying to eliminate as much agreement as it can through opposition to find a diverse neutralized area.  This generally creates subjective areas.


3.       Main neutral by combining the passive and aggressive neutrals into an area of unity in diversity as the main neutral ground. This general creates an aesthetic area.  
[1]The information on agnosticism came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

[2] The information on atheism came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[3] The information on theism came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

[4] C. S. Peirce: But it would be quite misunderstanding the doctrine of fallibilism to suppose that it means that twice two is probably not exactly four. As I have already remarked, it is not my purpose to doubt that people can usually count with accuracy. Nor does fallibilism say that men cannot attain a sure knowledge of the creations of their own minds. It neither affirms nor denies that. It only says that people cannot attain absolute certainty concerning questions of fact." (An Untitled Ms., CP 1.147-149, c. 1897) http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/fallibilism.html

Sunday, February 10, 2013

A GRAND VIEW OF TRANSTHEISM:


(In outline mode at this point)

Definition:




Transtheism in a broad sense is a system of thought, philosophical, religious or spiritually which neither is theism, atheism nor agnosticism. In a narrower sense, transtheism is a position or belief that the existence of deity is circumvented or transcended in some way.  Specifically Transtheism is belief in a system of thought, philosophical, religious or spiritually, with or without deities or gods, that divinity is attainable.

Generally transtheism has an objective pragmatic belief in the potential existence of deity but does not have deity as the leading principle of its system of thought.




In this paper the word God(s) will denote the concepts of:  Only one God, god, gods, goddess, goddesses, Deity, deity, deities. 

Transtheistic neutrality about God(s):

Subjective transtheism neither accepts nor denies God(s). By faith this is the correct position.  By doing so one keeps an open mind about the subject of God(s).

Objective transtheism neither completely asserts nor rejects God(s). Objectively believes that this is the correct position. By doing so one keeps an open mind to new experience’s and evidence.

Main things to neutralize:

1.       Neutralize the concept of God(s)

2.       Neutralize the perception of God(s) existence or non-existence.

3.       Neutralize the relationship of God(s) to man.

4.       Neutralize the relationship of God(s) to reality in general. 




Does God(s) exist or not?




1.       Does God(s) exist? Theists position; yes, atheists position; no, agnostics position; unknown and the transtheists position; neutrality, these are all uniquely different positions.


2.       To neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of God(s) is the neutral position of Transtheism. In the sense that faith, belief or knowledge is in degrees and flexible.  


3.       To admit the continual possibility of God(s) is a sufficient ground for a neutral transtheistic position of flexible belief but is an insufficient position for complete belief in theism, atheism or agnosticism.


4.       To admit the presence or absence by way of perception of God(s) is the neutral position of transtheist and the only degree of “existence or non-existence” that is knowable as a personal experience.


5.       To admit the possibility or actuality of an attainable reality above or equal to the reality of God(s). Turns the existence or non-existence of God(s) into a non-critical question in a philosophic, religious or spiritual position.


6.       The question of God(s) existence is completely unsettled by arguments alone.


7.       One can be philosophic, religious or spiritual independent of God(s), theism, atheism or agnosticism. As many transtheist do every day.  


8.       Theism, atheism or agnosticism assume too much about the descriptive concepts of God(s) in order to support any single positions. The neutral transtheist position can draw on the positive of each position to form a flexible comprehensive point of view. 


9.       Our idea of existence or non-existence may not be descriptive of God(s) reality. In other words God(s) reality maybe beyond the idea of existence or non-existence as we define it for humans.


10.   The question of God(s) existence is not a scientific problem at this point and so has not been scientifically addressed.







Why can’t theism, atheism or agnosticism prove their answers on the question of God(s) existence?


1. Because the overwhelming proof they need is not being found or provided for their position.


2. Let’s assume for the moment that we human are not totally at fault with our fallible knowledge.  As we turn to reality or the universe we can acknowledge at least this much, that there is a possibility that God(s) exist. Based on that fact, one is justified in neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of God(s). This is the neutral position of my transtheism; it is not the position of theism, atheism or agnosticism.


3. Next we turn to God(s), at least this much can be acknowledged about God(s), they can be absent. The existence or non-existence of God(s) is not a directly observable facts but the absence of God(s) is an observable fact. Based on the fact of absence, one is justified in neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of God(s). Again this is the neutral position of my transtheism; it is not the position of theism, atheism or agnosticism.


4. Now, theism, atheism or agnosticism is positions that cannot be supported by the two facts that I have presented. However transtheism is supported by these facts as a neutral position. Why can’t theism, atheism or agnosticism prove their answers on the question of God(s) existence? Because their answers assumer more than these two facts allow.




The Six belief tendencies transtheist use to achieve neutrality:

1.       Belief and faith are tools or the means to philosophic, religious or spiritual freedom, autonomy and neutrality. Generally from the control of God(s), theism, atheism or agnosticism.


2.       Reality is not limited to existing, just because of God(s).


3.       God(s) are not limited to just being God(s).


4.       God(s) are not limited to just our reality.


5.       Divinity is not limited to just God(s).


6.       Things and creatures are not limited to just being what they are, they can become other realities.  


What transtheist commit too in order to maintain and define their philosophic, religious or spiritual position beyond the dogmas of theism, atheism or agnosticism are part of the concerns of this paper.


What are some of the attitudes a transtheist may have about theism, atheism or agnosticism?


1.       Complete commit to theism, atheism or agnosticism is an unrealistic idea for a neutral position of transtheism.


2.       Complete committed to the idea of freedom to believe and alternate belief at any moment is better than complete commitment to theism, atheism or agnosticism.


3.       Complete commitment to God(s), theism, atheism or agnosticism is not necessary for living a neutral philosophic, religious or spiritual life.


4.       Theism, atheism or agnosticism is unsatisfactory in their own ways as philosophic, religious or spiritual positions because of the strife created.

5.       Transtheism is a flexible neutral philosophic, religious or spiritual position that goes beyond but does not completely exclude theism, atheism or agnosticism. 
Different ways transtheism achieve a neutral position beyond theism, atheism or agnosticism.

1.       That God(s) are capable of being immanent but we are not their ultimate concern so they are mostly indifferent, we are then free in our philosophic, religious or spiritual existence.

2.       God(s) are transcendent to the point of being indifferent or separated from our reality, so that we are free in our philosophic, religious or spiritual existence.

3.       God(s) may not have created our reality so they are not responsible for our philosophic, religious or spiritual existence; we are inherently free from their control.

4.       If God(s) created our reality and created us as free will agents, we are free and responsible for our philosophic, religious or spiritual existence. Our reword or punishment is in our hands.

5.       Being a God(s) is not ultimate reality there are realities above them, even they can attain.

6.       There is no ultimate one god, ultimate reality or truth is not a sentient being. It is the goal of all things and God(s) to have union with the ultimate monadic reality or truth.

7.       A belief that we can become equal to or greater than God(s) in certain ways, just as God(s) can become equal to or greater than other God(s) in certain ways. Godliness can be transcended.

8.       The God(s) above the idea godliness, the descriptive doctrines, concepts, perception and so on of godliness in theism, atheism or agnosticism are transcended by the higher reality that they are trying to describe but can’t.

9.       Our philosophic, religious or spiritual purpose is our relationship with higher purposes or principles that makes us into better being, not to God(s) just because they exist.

10.   God(s) are or can be just ideas as metaphorical archetypes that represent phenomena or virtues. The phenomena or virtues transcend the metaphorical representation because the phenomena or virtues are objective realities and the metaphorical archetypes are not.  Theism is then transcended because the God(s) are metaphorical, atheism is transcended because no objectively existing God(s) are involved and agnosticism is transcended because the phenomena or virtues are known.

11.   The God above the gods that exist is a Non-God(s). In order for God to be beyond the capabilities of other gods to be equal or surpass God. God must be greater than a god or something other than but greater than a god. That is to say, a Non-God(s) or God has passed beyond to the greater Non-God(s). This is how to neutralize theism, atheism or agnosticism. Transtheism advance the idea of the of Non-God(s) “existence” transcending the idea of God(s) existence.

12.   One absolute God that exists is a Non- God. A God that absolutely transcends everything is the only being that can surpass itself and become a greater Non-God. That is to say God transcends being God and becomes a Non-God(s).  Again, this is how to neutralize theism, atheism or agnosticism. Transtheism advance the idea of the of Non-God(s) “existence” transcending the idea of one absolute God.

13.   Absolute faith that transcends the need for theism and God(s). Theism and the need for God(s) are transcended when faith as a reality of our being is equal to the reality of God(s) being.  In theory our faith-reality is a phenomenon of our philosophic, spiritual or religious being. So when one achieves absolute faith or whatever degree of faith is needed to equal God(s) being.  We have been freed from the necessity of God(s) aid and the theisms about God(s).





Sources:


Transtheism on the web. 



Transtheistic is a term coined by philosopher Paul Tillich or Indologist Heinrich Zimmer, referring to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic, nor atheistic [1] but is beyond them.


Zimmer applies the term to the theological system of Jainism, which is theistic in the limited sense that the gods exist, but become immaterial as they are transcended by moksha (that is, a system which is not non-theistic, but in which the gods are not the highest spiritual instance). Zimmer (1953, p. 182) uses the term to describe the position of the Tirthankaras having passed "beyond the godly governors of the natural order".


The term has more recently also been applied to Buddhism,[2] Advaita VedantaHYPERLINK  \l "cite_note-2"[3] and the Bhakti movement.[4]


Nathan Katz in Buddhist and Western Philosophy (1981, p. 446) points out that the term "transpolytheistic" would be more accurate, since it entails that the polytheistic gods are not denied or rejected even after the development of a notion of the Absolute that transcends them, but criticizes the classification as characterizing the mainstream by the periphery: "like categorizing Roman Catholicism as a good example of non-Nestorianism". The term is indeed informed by the fact that the corresponding development in the West, the development of monotheism, did not "transcend" polytheism, but abolish it, while in the mainstream of the Indian religions, the notion of "gods" (deva) was never elevated to the status of Brahman, but adopted roles comparable to Western angels. "Transtheism", according to the criticism of Katz, is then an artifact of comparative religion.


Paul Tillich uses transtheistic in The Courage to Be (1952), as an aspect of Stoicism. Tillich stated that Stoicism and Neo-Stoicism


are the way in which some of the noblest figures in later antiquity and their followers in modern times have answered the problem of existence and conquered the anxieties of fate and death. Stoicism in this sense is a basic religious attitude, whether it appears in theistic, atheistic, or transtheistic forms.[5]


Like Zimmer trying to express a religious notion that is neither theistic nor atheistic. However, the theism that is being transcended in Stoicism according to Tillich is not polytheism as in Jainism, but monotheism, pursuing an ideal of human courage which has emancipated itself from God.


The courage to take meaninglessness into itself presupposes a relation to the ground of being which we have called "absolute faith." It is without a special content, yet it is not without content. The content of absolute faith is the "god above God." Absolute faith and its consequence, the courage that takes the radical doubt, the doubt about God, into itself, transcends the theistic idea of God.[6]


Martin Buber criticized Tillich's "transtheistic position" as a reduction of God to the impersonal "necessary being" of Thomas Aquinas.[7]




It's a word for a belief system that neither accepts nor rejects the idea of the existence of God(s). For example, neo-Paganism is a nature-based religious grouping, and it can be said to be transtheistic because both theism and atheism are compatible with its general beliefs. Some Pagans believe in God(s) and some don't, but it has no bearing on the basic tenets of their beliefs. Transtheism has also been used to describe Buddhism, Jainism, etc.


Source(s):

I've studied religious anthropology.


transtheistic


[edit] English


Wikipedia has an article on:


[edit] Etymology

From trans- and theistic; coined by philosopher Paul Tillich and Indologist Heinrich Zimmer (see quotes).

[edit] Adjective

transtheistic (comparative more transtheistic, superlative most transtheistic)

(of a belief system) Transcending theism.


Transtheism Doctrine

Transtheism assumes the existence of God as an absent Deity and the ultimate concept of God’s existence is transcendent and external to all other forms of existence, which implies an impersonal, non-anthropomorphic, non-universemorphic or even non-cosmosmorphic being and view of God. In transtheism, God has one primary attribute, transcendence. Transtheism is the view that God did not create the universe and does not interact with it; emphasis is on the Deities ultimate transcendence. The cosmos exists simultaneously with God’s existence and exists as a result of the transcendent existence of God.

Transtheist position on the absence of God:

·         We must exist.

·         We are not God.

·         Therefore God is absent.


Transtheism refers to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic, nor atheistic. Indologist Heinrich Zimmer applies the term to the theological system of Jainism, which is theistic in the limited sense that the gods exist, but become immaterial as they are transcended by moksha (that is, it is a system which is not non-theistic, but in which the gods are not the highest spiritual instance). The term has more recently also been applied to Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta and the Bhakti movement.



I'm considering two names for this phenonemon. Transtheism or Supratheism. I like Transtheism because "trans" has two connotations: across and above/beyond. This is nice because it suggests that the believers could understand that a cross-over between our universe and the otherworld is possible, in terms of the spilling over of the otherworldly god into our universe (as our spirits) and/or the sending of an emissary from the otherworld to assist with salvation and/or our journey "home" to the otherworld. Supratheism is also possible, although it may indicate too much of a complete transcendence and separation of the God, as if the otherworldly God has no contact with this world (which is not the case in these systems).


First of all we have to distinguish between atheism, nontheism, apatheism and so on. Atheism is a statement that one does not belive in the existence of Deity.

Several religions dont have a central God but this leaves them either nontheistic or transtheistic Crowley mentions that we dont know wether God(s) exist or not (and it is not relevant to the great work any more than faith is ).

Buddhism and Taoism are fundamentally and originally nontheistic, or in short, religions without a central or creating Deity.

Later versions ,syncretized with local polytheistic cults have made them rather transtheistic. Meaning that there is no ultimate God. Ultimate truth is not a sentient being or “God” but a “state” (actually not even that term suffices….since no term does). Their Gods are in a sense like man (though on a “higher” level), on the way to the same goal, the same union or henotheosis with the ultimate.monadic truth.

Similar thoughts could be found in ancient Greece among several philosophers.

Terms like Kether (Kabbalah), Bythos (Gnosticism), Monad (Neoplatonism) and in the east Moksha, Nirvana and so on being this first emanation without duality (and thus obviously without a “personality” too).


"On this path, there are three notions one should never lose sight of: that appearances are the deity, sounds are mantra, and thoughts are wisdom. These points are of crucial importance." - Chökyi Nyima Transtheism: Utilizing deities as a means to an end, as opposed to the deity being the end of critical thought (regarding what one uses as a means for ends.)


I like her term "Transtheism". Allow me to quote her blog
"My proposal is to... (study) those groups of religious people in the ancient world that worship a god who is spatially beyond our universe and who is not identified as the immediate creator and ruler of our universe. Instead, these roles are attributed to subordinate powers who are not being worshiped."


The basic idea of transtheism is

1) There is a higher constant in reality than God, hence God is no longer a top the apex and therefore not principle to a belief system.
2) When you remove all logical contradictions present in the idea of God and simultaneously extend some implications of a natural materialism the universe with and without a God are the same, hence the position transends theism
3)transtheism is ignostic, that is the terms atheism and theism don't really mean much because the concept 'god' your are trying to make statements about is beyond our paradigm of understanding and therefore not applicable

Its not an easily concept to grasp but it became move obvious to me when Enso who would classically be consider theist as a very similar set of metaphysical ideas as myself who would classically be described atheist. The dividing line was so small and indistinct I looked for another word and my Taoist buddies help me out with that. Panetheism and pantheism are similiar schools of thought and if I'm honest they are rather blurry with what they do and do not described

But does transtheism deny that existence is pointless? A transtheist doesnt just 'lack belief' in anything right?


Basically what your post has conveyed to me, is that there is something 'going on' but this is something that cannot be expressed linguistically because it is irrational to express this with something so limited as language, and also somewhere where logic and rationality cannot penetrate due to themselves, having linguistic barriers.


Pantheism though simply suggests God became the universe, and not separate. Transtheism differs because it implies the existence of 'something' which we cannot call God because we are in no position to ascribe predicates to such an entity?

I'd also add that a transtheist considers atheism a starting point, not the unequivocal logic and evidence based viewpoint. I'd say transtheists were once atheists at one point but 'evolved' beyond simply lacking belief or arguing with theists.


A transtheist acknowledges the pitfalls of human religions, but rather than argue wth them, they can see that both athest and theist are unable to see reality 'as it is' due to paradigm incommensurability. A transtheist is really ahead of everyone else in this regard.


There are other sorts of beliefs too like panpsychism which acknowledges scientific method and reductionism are useful tools but are limited in describing various aspects of reality like consciousness and the experiential.

I think beliefs such as these are the beginnings of a new paradigm shift.

Transtheism makes no comment regarding the meaning of existence. Being transtheist would qualify you as atheist toward an religious or anthropomorphic idea of god, so in that sense they do 'lack belief'. If a transtheist holds any idea of God then it is likely to be so far removed from the theistic idea that most theists would consider them atheist.

The value of things is imo a different area and not directly related to god existence, personally my opinion is that many people get confusion what what value actually is and hence falsely feel the need to objectify it. But thats a different topic.



Transtheism is the belief in one or more deities or gods who transcend the universe and are yet immanent in it. Western and Eastern variants of Transtheism exist, with the emphasis on the individual relative to God being greater in the Western. Immanence is a religious and philosophical concept. ...


In its extreme form it assumes the existence of God as an absent Deity and the ultimate concept of God’s existence is transcendent and external to all other forms of existence, which implies an impersonal and theomorphic view of God. God's primary attribute is transcendence. Transtheists have the view that God did not create the universe and does not interact with it, which distinguish it from Deism. The cosmos exists simultaneously with God’s existence and as a result of God's transcendent nature. This article discusses the term God in the context of monotheism and henotheism. ... Look up deity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ... Look up ultimate, penultimate, antepenultimate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ... In religion, transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses, and is independent of, physical existence. ... For other uses, see Ceremonial Deism. ...

Contents
·         2 Views on Transtheism
·         4 See also
·         5 External links


The transtheistic elements in religions are often contrasted or counter balanced by theistic elements. Religions that emphasize an Apophatic theological method generally stress the transtheistic attributes and focus on the transcendent, impersonal, absent, ineffable, absolute, solitary, theomorphic… nature of divinity. Where as religions that emphasizes the Cataphatic theological method may stress the Theistic aspects and focus on the immanent, personal, present, effable, relative, intimate, anthropomorphic… nature of divinity. Another important contrast is the mode of existence that the divine being has. Transtheism’s posit other forms of existence’s from humanity for divinities. Theism’s generally posit some form of shared existence of deities with humanity. Atheism the non-existence of deities. However, generally within a given religion, transtheism could be viewed as a doctrine that teaches that the true nature of Deity transcends the descriptive doctrines of that religion. Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism... and perhaps even Atheism, each having descriptive doctrines, comparatively they have strengths and weakness and each disputes the accuracy of the other. Transtheism differs from Agnosticism in that while the latter claims to be unable to make any definitive statements concerning Deity. Transtheism assumes the existence of Deity and asserts that there are specific instances in which the aforementioned doctrines may be accurate but are subject to human apprehension. Apophasis is a rhetorical figure of speech wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked. ... Cataphatic (sometimes spelled kataphatic) theology is the expressing of God or the divine by what is or expressing God through positive terminology. ... Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. ... For the Celtic Frost album, see Monotheist (album) In theology, monotheism (from Greek one and god) is the belief in the existence of one deity or God, or in the oneness of God. ... Polytheism is belief in or worship of multiple gods or deities. ... Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( pan ) = all and θεός ( theos ) = God) literally means God is All and All is God. It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. ... “Atheist” redirects here. ... Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning without, and Gnosticism or gnosis, meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism...




Views on Transtheism

Augustine's famous phrase from De Trinitate: “We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what he is”


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. Look up absolute in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...


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.”


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)


Maimonides ( (Spanish philosopher considered the greatest Jewish scholar of the Middle Ages who codified Jewish law in the Talmud (1135-1204)) : "God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents, which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute whatever. The negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living - it is not dead; ...it is the first - its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will - it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One - there are not more Gods than one. Thus, every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself - and not of His actions - the (The speech act of negating) negation of the opposite."




Existence of God in Transtheism

By assuming the existence of God as an absent Deity, Transtheism develops a view that the majority of arguments against or for the existence of God are mainly indirect arguments for the absence of God, when in relationship to our existence. Ontological arguments about the nature of God’s being, which dictate by definition a necessary existence seem to be exempt from this point of view. So that it can be said by Transtheist that:

·         Arguments against the existence of God only provide inferences for the absence of God.

·         Arguments for the existence of God only provide inferences for the results of God’s absence.

Transtheists may consider credible evidence for or against the existence of God is absent. So it is a shorter logical step to declare God absent from the universe, rather than existent or non-existent. Following on this we are presented with a choice, to believe between a possible objective reality beyond our universe (another existence) or no possible objective realities beyond this universe (assuming this universe is all there is). Transtheism define God's existence, as an objective occurring entity (beyond our universe), which is considered the natural disposition of reality (entities have objectivity) within the relative state of this universe. Transtheism defines the universe and God as separate objective realities. The absence of one in the other is a logical consequence of this point of view.

Transtheism in various religions: The transtheistic elements in religions are often contrasted or counter balanced by theistic elements.
Transtheism assumes the existence of Deity and asserts that there are specific instances in which the aforementioned doctrines may be accurate but are subject to human apprehension.
Transtheism develops a view that the majority of arguments against or for the existence of GOD are mainly indirect arguments for the absence of GOD, when in relationship to our existence.



Transtheism

by Sergei Skryabin

My religion is a Transtheism.Even more, I do believe that I am a founder of this religious thought.

Transtheism respects every religion,so I can experience their revelations.

Once, when I visited the Jerusalem I was plunged into the state like the conscious dream.

The mood of the unknown ancient Middle East religion gave me a way of
the perception of the Western Wall like a Pantheon of the almighty Gods, where every God
was represented by its own solid block overfilled with something like a strong magnetic field.

There was the sensation that the blocks can move changing the strength of
the field on the different sides.Just few seconds I prayed to this Pantheon
in ecstasy and arrived again to the present reality psychically exhausted but
filled with the unbelievable joy.After this event, I didn't get eventhe desire to make
any enquiry about what this religion is,so fully I was satisfied.Standing before the
Western Wall I turned my face to the East to the Mecca,and the hope
gently touched my heart that,maybe,some future development will make it possible to
see the holy Kaaba.

P.S.From this point I got an attractive idea that the Ark of the Covenant
was the Quantum Brain of the Orion civilization.




God is the term used to denote the Supreme Being ascribed by many religions to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence. Conceptions of God vary widely, despite the common use of the same term for them all.
God - Concept of God
In many Western religions, God is usually said to have a specific and clearly defined relationship to, and interest in, the happenings of this world and the lives of those in it. Metaphors for God's relationship to the visible world often include that of ruling authority (king, ruler), and (in most Abrahamic religions) judge of individual activity therein.
By contrast, many Asian and Oriental religions and philosophies consider that there is an ultimate intelligence, purpose or awareness beyond this world, but without necessarily conceptualizing it in such a human-oriented manner or positing it as having created the world predominantly for human beings.
The term "God" is a label or linguistic symbol, for the ultimate being or truth of existence whom many people believe exists [1] [2], and different people subsume within that term their different concepts about the nature and attributes of such a being.
God - Attributes of God
·         God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
·         Some concepts of God may include anthropomorphic attributes, gender, particular names, and ethnic exclusivity (see Chosen people), while others are purely transcendent or philosophic concepts.
·         The concept of God is often embedded in definitions of truth, where the sum of all truth is equated to God.
·         There are variations on defining God either as a person, or not as a person but as an ambiguous impersonal force (see Absolute Infinite). Also at stake are questions concerning the possibilities of human/God relations. There are countless variations in traditions of worship and/or appeasement of God.
·         Some concepts of God center on a view of God as ultimate, immanent, transcendent, eternal Reality beyond the shifting and constantly mutable multiplicities of the sensible world.
·         In much religious and philosophic thought, God is considered the creator of the universe.
·         Some traditions hold that the creator is also the sustainer (as in theism), while others argue that their God is no longer involved in the world after creation (as in deism).
·         The common definition of God assumes omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. However, not all systems hold that God is necessarily morally good (see summum bonum). Some hold that God is the very definition of moral goodness and that God is equivalent to love. Others maintain that God is beyond morality.
·         Negative theology, sometimes called apophatic theology argues that no true statements about attributes of God can be made at all (because this asserts that the essence of God's being can be expressed accurately within the limits of human language), while agnostic positions argue that limited human understanding does not allow for any conclusive opinions on God whatsoever. Some mystical traditions ascribe limits to God's powers, arguing that God's supreme nature leaves no room for spontaneity.
·         The concept of a singular God is characteristic of monotheism, but there is no universal definition of monotheism. The differences between monotheism and polytheism vary among traditions (see also dualism, and henotheism).
·         Some espouse an exclusionist view, holding to one sole definition of God. Others hold an inclusionist view, accepting the possibility of more than one definition of God to be true at the same time.
·         There are also atheistic explanations for the concept of God that can include psychological and/or sociological factors.
See also theology below.
Allah, Atheism, Agnosticism, Ayya Vaikundar, Baal, Deism, Existence of God, God and gender, God complex, God in Buddhism, God realm, Jesus, Jehovah, Krishna, List of appearances of God in fiction, Natural theology, Nontheism, Pantheism, Polytheism, The Higgs boson, the God particle, Spiritism, Theism, Transtheism, The Urantia Book, Planes of existence, Yahuah, Yazidi

 http://www.thetreesarefake.com/1/post/2013/02/transtheism.html

Transtheism

02/25/2013
 
Picture
In todays society we tend to want to label things, individuals in particular.
So when asked my label when it comes to a believe in a god, what should I say?
My choices have been in the past:
theist, deist, atheist, and pantheist.
But I've had trouble coming to one of those labels because my "feelings" tend to be every label on the list above, yet much more.

I'm an atheist to every god invented by mankind this includes the current frontrunner gods: Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah.
I'm a deist when it comes to the idea of "contact" with god or gods through miracles or so-called revelations.
And I'm a deist also in my manner of rejection of truly limited gods of mankind.
I'm a pantheist in that this being (beyond mans crude concept of god) not only resides outside the confines of what we call time-space, but also penetrates the very essence of our minds.
In other words: To find god one must only look within.
Finally I'm a theist in the faith of a personal connection with an outside being, for not only is it "outside" but "within."

So how does one come to a single label with all of these interconnecting themes?
After I spent some time researching other terms of describing something beyond theism and atheism, I came across transtheism.
It can mean different things, but to me it first means the joining of the above into a label.
Secondly, it means the courage to be in the face of non-being.
Presented here is a quote from philosopher Paul Tillich which I think most eloquently states my feeling:
"The courage to take meaninglessness into itself presupposes a relation to the ground of being which we have called "absolute faith." It is without a special content, yet it is not without content. The content of absolute faith is the "god above God." Absolute faith and its consequence, the courage that takes the radical doubt, the doubt about God, into itself, transcends the theistic idea of God."



Archive for September 2012

 Advaita and Buddhism


http://satyoga.podbean.com/2012/09/
Read Full Post »
Excerpt: “All experience occurs within the Self and can be modified by the Self because it is actually all part of the Self, and a creation of the Self. But the Self never appears as an object, and the Self, to all intents and purposes to the scientific mind, does not exist. And this is why many have called Advaita and Buddhism forms of religious atheism. You could say that, but they are not atheism in the same sense as the materialist [who] doesn’t believe in God. The materialist is simply refusing to believe in Sunday school stories. But if the materialist had to actually consider what is the ultimate transcendental condition of experience, then that would be a different matter. So when the atheists attack God, they’re attacking a straw God, a false God. But when you ask ‘Who is doing the attacking?’ ‘Who is the source of the consciousness with that attitude?’ you can take that consciousness back to a level which cannot be understood. But it is fair to say that Advaita and Buddhism are forms of transtheism because no concept of God can ever capture the Self, not even the word Self. And that is why we often will say the Self is no self. And the metaphor is often used that what the Self is, is the space in which consciousness occurs. But even that is only a metaphor because the Self constitutes whatever space it is in which experience occurs but is not Itself that space. And therefore the Self is absolutely transcendent of all conceptualization, and the only way to reach it is by letting go of the attempt to do just that.” Recorded on the evening of Thursday, September 13, 2012.

 http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_TheShack.html  



More specifically, the phrase that God is "the ground of all being" comes from philosopher/theologian Paul Tillich
(1886-1965). Tillich is regarded by many as being a nontheist, that is, one who does not believe in God as a personal being, but rather is "being" itself -- the source of all that exists. In fact, Tillich said that "god is not a being, but being itself." Others view him as a panentheist, one who believes that all is contained in God although God also transcends all. One writer calls Tillich a "transtheist." Whatever term is used, Tillich's concept of God effectively renders God impersonal, even if Tillich still claims God to be personal.  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).

 http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt245742.html

 The 9th century Catholic theologian and philosopher, John Scotus Eriugena, shocked his contemporaries when he claimed he believed in a non-existent God. He believed in a non-existent God because he believed God transcended existence. In other words, for John Scotus, God was a super-existent being who created existence along with the universe and everything else. This is, I believe, a profound metaphysical position. Rather than a binary classification of things into existence and non-existence, he uses a trinary classification into super-existence, existence and non-existence. Like all metaphysical statements, it is unverifiable (and meaningless) but is it impossible?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



A DRUIDS THOUGHTS

http://valleyoakblog.wordpress.com/category/druidry/

I want to feel Deity rather than think about it, and one of the reasons I have continued to be a spiritual seeker for so many years is because I have, on occasions, had mystical experiences in which I feel I have experienced Deity. So I have faith and belief in my heart, but when it comes to how I conceive of Deity in my mind, then I am a transigtheist. Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts. Transtheism refers to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic, nor atheistic. Ideologist Heinrich Zimmer applies the term to the theological system of Jainism, which is theistic in the limited sense that the gods exist, but become immaterial as they are transcended by moksha (that is, it is a system which is not non-theistic, but in which the gods are not the highest spiritual instance). This may seem an overly subtle or even evasive reply to the question, but my point is that I don’t think we can think about this – deity truly is a mystery that can be experienced, but not rationally or analytically explained or understood.


Did Immanuel Kant believe in God?


 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080421002054AAz21xx
He believed only because he concluded he MUST. He himself proved that there was no proof of God, and no NEED of God except as part of a "system" that he thought was necessary to the workings of the human mind.

"Kant gets rid of the usual foundation for reality, that is, God, and replaces it with a web of transcendental conditions."

"As such, these conditions are the 'source of all truth'..."

" There are three ideas of reason: self, world and God. God is the Ideal of Reason..."

"The Ideal of Reason does not satisfy the transcendental conditions and so cannot be considered objectively real. "

Therefore, Kant said God is not "objectively real." But he contradicts himself: "Consequently, Kant first discusses the transcendental proof of God's existence, arguing that the other proofs ultimately depend on it."

"Kant's rejection of all possible proofs of God's existence and his moving God out of the sphere of ontology, rules out the traditional ground of a systematic universe."

"The principle of God is not needed to explain nature. All that is needed is the principle of systematicity."

"Despite this status, Kant claims that we need the idea of systematic unity, that we "must" assume [God's existence.]"

WE MUST ASSUME GOD'S EXISTENCE because it fits a system! Kant's belief in God is because man's mind needs a "system" and God fits that system! How is that for "belief"?

God is "fiction".....
"This [system] preserves the concept of God as a regulative principle or model. In the Critique, Kant allows the concept of God to remain meaningful in the context of cognition, but only as an investigative fiction. "

"The Critique of Pure Reason, then, moves God out of the realm of ontology and into that of epistemology. The concept of God is involved in cognition, but is merely an analogical image. From the standpoint of speculative reason, God has no objective reality. Yet Kant posits two types of reality, the cognitive and the moral. These two points of view are tied together by reason. The concept of sensation is not simply a negative boundary to stop us from bringing up: something that lies behind sensation. Kant wants us to leave this something completely unspecified in the realm of cognition. God is indeterminable in the sphere of understanding, determinable in the sphere of reason, and determinate in the sphere of moral experience. There are then two view points, the cognitive, which includes understanding and reason, and the realm of moral experience. Kant retains the reality and determinability of God in the sphere of moral experience. Only the reality of God makes morality possible. In terms of empirical cognition, however, we cannot go beyond the bounds of the a priori conditions. Only Kant's analysis of moral experience lets us go beyond the analogical level. "

All above quotes are from http://www.mun.ca/phil/codgito/vol3/v3do...

"One of Kant's major goals was to save religion (including the essence of religious morality) from the onslaughts of science. "
Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 31.


"The man who … closed the door of philosophy to reason, was Immanuel Kant …

"Kant's expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason."
"For the New Intellectual," For the New Intellectual, 30.

"I have," writes Kant, "therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith."
Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 32