Your Natural Theology

Post Reply New Topic

If you believed in the power of supernatural forces, and did not hold to one of the mainstream religions, what kind of religious expression would you develop? Why would/could you believe that in such a religious idea?

I know, this is a difficult counter-factual. Here is some advice of what to look at: What apologetics are you most impressed by? What empirical facts do you think more important to reconcile your view with? What aspects of your current worldview do you personally consider the most important?

Personally, I find this question difficult. I think I am between deism, and the notion of an anthropocentric, impersonal spiritual force if I had to just analyze myself to see what I am closer to. The reason being that I am somewhat unsettled by the problem of evil, I am relatively unwilling to accept Divine Command theory, I tend to see unity in the world more strongly than disunity, I consider the first cause argument to be one of the stronger arguments, and I have to admit that moral aesthetics weigh on me somewhat.

Anyone else's thoughts?

I think we need to define some terms here Awesomelyglorious, you seem to be using the terms religion and theology interchangably but to me they are two diferent things. I don't hold to any religion but I do have theological opinions and I do believe in a deity. Also, by supernatural forces do you mean spiritual? Is there a spirit of Awesomelyglorious, that has a mind and will of its own, or do you not really exist being nothing more than a collection of microsopic organisms that make up your body.

If you are going to go with the former, did the deity grant you free will, and if the later is this spirit controled by the body?

Well, I say theology to get to the point that this is not actually necessarily the religion that a person believes. After all, religion has more of a context of belief, but theology more along the lines of analysis. I also referenced "natural theology" to get to the point that this is not supposed to get at any poster's revealed religion, but rather be a theology that adheres closely to the facts these people see outside of the purely religious facts of revelation and faith-specific miracle.(although one can use the general existence of miracles as one of their facts for forming the world, the idea is to avoid coming to a conclusion of literal Christianity, even if someone comes to a conclusion very similar)

Spiritual. Supernatural. It means the same in that context. The idea is just to make sure that I address atheists in that notion.

Do I have a spirit? Um... well, I don't have to come to a conclusion on it, as religious beliefs don't require that individual people have souls, they require that a being that is beyond our own existence in some form or fashion exists.


If the former, then probably no free will. It isn't part of my perspective, so it isn't a question that even came to mind. If the latter, then prayers are probably feeble, and it is not necessarily directly linked to human life itself, only interested in human life in some form or fashion. It also is disembodied and does not incorporate itself into anything.

Well, if free will doesn't come into this AG, I really don't see the point of all of this logical analysis. I know we are Aspies and maybe we just can't help ourselves, but that doesn't really explain it because NT's do it too.

I still don't understand what you mean by natural theology. What kind of theology can be natural to me outside of the possible existence of my own soul? I have a personal theology but I don't hold to any religious facts. What you are calling religious beliefs I would call theological opinions that I hold so strongly that I act on the basis that they are true and am prepared to accept the consequences if they are not.

Um... the point is to basically make some kind of theology up. This isn't a community endeavor. I didn't say "free will doesn't exist", I responded to your questions about my made up system. This isn't even an in-depth logical analysis. This is playing with ideas.


You can hold to the existence of your own soul as part of this exercise. The idea is to make up metaphysical entities as these entities might appear to you if you didn't reject the ideas, as many people here likely hold to an existent religion with a holy text and all that or are atheists, so most of the warnings are for people who would reject the activity in some form or fashion.

Umm.... I am not talking about anything requiring faith or anything of that nature.

NobelCynic, the entire point of this is a playful exercise. There really aren't many limitations to this exercise. The entire point is to put forward some theological notions just to play around with the idea of religion. I doubt it is as hard as you are making this, or has as many issues as you are reading into the matter.

You seem to be saying a religion demands the belief in a being outside our perceptive capability. I am genuinely puzzled why anyone who seriously considers the possibility would have to believe in it rather than merely hold it as possible.

Many believe in the Big Bang which cannot be perceived, but only hypothesized. For the first 300,000 years, according to the theory, the universe was totally opaque and light could not get out, so we cannot ever see the Big Bang no matter how powerful a telescope is deployed.

What makes this believed in object quasi reasonable is that certain verified predictions have followed from it.

What is also believed, but not perceived (or is even perceivable) is the uniformity of physical laws in time and space. There is not way go everywhere to even test to see of physical laws are uniform. Uniformity is assumed, because we cannot do science without assuming uniformity.

It is ironic that our best method of knowing the world is based an a thoroughly begged question.

ruveyn

ruveyn

I have no argument with the acceptance that physical uniformity is assumed as what is fundamental to mentally constructing what our universe basically is, but science is ever on the lookout for any exceptions to these assumptions and when one is discovered it is quick to modify its assumptions. This thread is not about the deficiencies of religion so I'd rather not go into that here.

Well, generally speaking, religion often does refer to things that aren't directly seen, smelt, heard, touched, or tasted. So, spiritual presences can be perceived, but not in such a direct manner as the senses.

Mostly, this thread is a bit of a game. Constructing a theological idea based upon what you think about reality minus any of the reasons you would side with the non-existence of religion, the unknowability of religion, or the existence of a pre-existing religion. Could this be difficult if not impossible for some? Sure, but I find it interesting.

I have no objection to your interest but don't understand the mind set that would accept the reality of an unperceivable entity.

Religious entities are perceived, just not perceived using the regular senses. People who have religious experiences are experiencing something, but they aren't seeing, touching, tasting, smelling, or hearing anything.

There are no other ways of connecting to the physical external world other than through the normal senses. We are physical beings who live in a physical world and perception is the result of physical interactions.

ruveyn

Since I have never perceived anything except through my sense apparatus I find no basis for your statement.

I have not experienced "X" therefore nobody has? There has been laboratory testing on things that people perceived to be out there, that they were not sensing through the 5 senses. One example of this is known as the "third man phenomenon" where people in difficult situations have had feelings that they were not alone.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 27614.html

Given that this is likely not the only phenomenon of this sort, there seems to be some pretty basic reasoning to believe that religions exist. This phenomenon alone is sufficient to justify religious beliefs, assuming a lack of knowledge about the materiality of the mind.

Unfortunately, I am not that gullible.

Perception and gullibility are different things. You can see a floating thumb(a result of an optical illusion), and thus perceive it, but still believe that there are no floating thumbs out there in reality.