*Sigh* Guess these typical theological definitions haven’t been echoed enough on the net… Do watch the Qualia vids though.
Youtube:
QualiaSoup – Faith
QualiaSoup – Flawed Thinking by Numbers
QualiaSoup – Absolutely Not
QualiaSoup – Critical Thinking
QualiaSoup – Betting on Infinity
QualiaSoup – Betting on Infinity Rebuttals
(I added a couple more Qualias to the Skepticism 101 post)
Question: Is there a table in the room?
- Agnostic (vaguely similar to Weak X): I estimate the likelihood of my position above 0% and below 100% but neither extreme.
- Gnostic (vaguely similar to Strong X): I choose a stance and assert with 100% certainty.
- Gnostic Agnostic: I assert we can never know if there’s a table here. Yes, even if it shows up one day, we can never know.
- Agnostic Agnostic: I don’t know what to think on the matter. No opinion. Let’s be civil everyone. Next subject…
- Polytheist: There are loads of tables in here. Pretty obvious really. Watch this feather bump into ‘em as it falls, each influencing the feather’s direction according to its nature. We should open up a furniture store.
- Theist: The table privately revealed itself to me, so it is ‘with us’. It is mighty, cares about me specifically, and coincidentally shares my opinions. Here’s a manifesto it dictated. And I will be offended if anyone calls it merely an assemblage of lumber, plastic, or metal. It’s sooo much more.
- Atheist: I’ll search the room, assuming no table until it interacts with my instruments in a manner matching the hypothetical thing represented by the word “table”. If it doesn’t DO anything, for all practical purposes it isn’t there. But if I bump into it, there be table. Tell me what roughly might constitute a “table” and I’ll get back to you.
In the meantime, I’ll point out any flawed reasoning that attempts to positively support claims of a table’s existence. If you can’t positively support your claim, it’s dishonest to tell other adults and children you know the table’s there and it has specific attributes. - Deist: The table is around here somewhere, and it can be detected if it wants to be found. It’s just shy. Its attributes? I can’t say, but it is a table. We’ll have to play poker on the floor since it probably won’t hold our cards.
- Animist: Let me consult the spirits of the other room elements. Door? Chair? Window? Floor? Ceiling? Room? Oxygen? Light? Nope. They don’t think there’s a table either.
- Pantheist: We are all table(s).
Ramblin’ Addendum:
If one favors a position but is unable to offer evidence or logic, it is an irrational stance. That isn’t in and of itself damning (e.g., favorite color), but in abdicating rationality, one waives the means to declare that position more closely aligned with objective reality than any other.
In other words, an irrational stance can only be personally favored, but not held as fact; enjoying the thought but not acting on it outside of aesthetic or private pursuits.
…
That is irrelevant to this bit of theology though. Aesthetics is a statement of the subjective properties of someone’s private mental world. Notions like whether the table’s color is pleasant would be subjective, but the existence of the table is a matter of objective reality.
As such, the only influences the existence thought might justifiably have on one one’s life choices are: expectations of its future tangible interaction with the environment (perform a gesture so the table doesn’t materialize and bruise your shin); or adjusting behavior to maintain membership in a social group predicated on the idea (the roundies’ creed says that it is real and is threatened by Pinesol users: shun them).
1) The idea of a table is emotionally appealing to me.
2) I accept as fact that a table exists.
#1: Aesthetic.
#2: Belief, which if one aspires to rationality, requires evidence.
Using #1 to justify #2 is delusion.
Most actively religious people on this planet erroneously do not make the favorite/fact distinction (or mistake fervor for evidence). But not everyone. One of the important early questions in any theological discussion is: When you say “believe” do you mean “you like the idea” or “something convinced you it is true”?
- Favorite: *shrug* nothing of substance to discuss really (magenta!?). If they openly label themselves an X-ist, they’re providing the fact guys with an added sense of social/intellectual acceptability in the disputes though.
- Fact: sorting out the proponent’s tangled logic/definitions, asking for evidence, and hoping emotional attachment isn’t the dominant decision maker for them if they’re mistaken. If it is, expect stonewalling (deflection/anger/etc), or a known-universe-slash-philosophy sweep for an unexplored nook or cranny in which to stash the table accompanied by obfuscating language to stay mystified.
Importantly, even among the fact guys, only a small subset of those are actively harmful to society and termed fundamentalists.
Liberal/Moderate modifiers primarily describe how loosely one likes to interpret a holy book, so they’re not helpful. If some sects had signs saying “we’re just LARPing in here” attendants might classify themselves better (e.g., choir fans). But if the goal is belonging to a large club, blurry distinctions fill more seats. :P
C’mon, it’d intellectually honest and tax exempt!
Precedent: The Landover Baptist Church, Church of the Subgenius, and Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are set up specifically as entertaining satire.
Edit 2010-02-01: Found one that comes close: Unitarian Universalism. Or rather its tenets have blurred so much that it’s uncertain what a serious member could be serious about.