A More Accurate Categorization of Religion

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Humans beleiving in 'gods' or higher powers is not insane, it's natrual for humans to do it.

Just because it's not insane doesn't mean it's rational. It's also natural for humans to anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I haven't been to church in around 11 years yet still identify as a Christian. When I look at biblical text I read it from a symbolism perspective, thus, I am a moderate. By definition, one can not believe in heaven and not believe in hell and call themselves a "christian". The ideas of heaven and hell are just not mutually exclusive. All "moderates" must in fact either subscribe to the notion that both exist or that neither exist. That being said, I have lived in numerous states, been to various churches, dealt with hundred os people on campaigns, etc... The notion of belief in hell being hard to find anymore among moderates is plain lunacy.

Being a naturalist or materialist, my definition of moderate Christians is "people that barely fit into a category which could technically be considered Christian." Anyone that thinks that the bible really is the word of god doesn't fit into this category.

[Coahuilha]

This is a decent categorization, and I say that as a devout Catholic. It's flawed, but better than the picture most people have in their head. Its main flaw is that it is mostly focused on the atheist-Christian continuum.

I would suggest a third axis, distinct in particular from the gnosticism axis, for the extent to which the religion is a part of daily life and is important to the practitioner. I, for example, feel I have much more in common with a practicing Orthodox Christian who cares about the details in his belief and is interested in their application, compared to a lukewarm Catholic who professes communion with the Church but doesn't care enough to even find out what the words mean. Likewise, there are agnostics who prefer to go about their lives avoiding religion as much as possible, are uncomfortable in a debate setting, and don't read much of sympathetic authors; but the opposite can also be found.

Also: "Non-Theism" is a misleading and awkward construct. Atheism is the word you're looking for: belief that no god exists. I would expect Non-Theism to mean "lack of belief in a god", which encompasses both agnosticism and atheism, and does not correspond to the description you gave.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Humans beleiving in 'gods' or higher powers is not insane, it's natrual for humans to do it.

Just because it's not insane doesn't mean it's rational. It's also natural for humans to anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

I didn't say it wasn't rational..but it still does not mean your insane for beleiving in a god...just ignorant.

[Classical Liberal]

I smell trolls approaching...

[Northwest Slobovia]

There are two continua, one of certitude and the other of the boldness of the claims you are making. The first is the agnostic/gnostic axis, and the other is the theist/atheist axis.

I think your axes may be too confounded/insufficiently orthogonal to be useful.

AFAIK, those making the "boldest" theistic claims must make the "strongest" gnostic claims as well. I can't imagine someone asserting the bible is literally true, but admitting that we don't/can't know very much about the divine. I have a hard time believing that a "bible serious" or "catholic church/mainstream protestant" could simultaneously be anywhere on the agnostic side of that axis either. (I can see "social" members of a religion, who practice what it preaches for social reasons (community, friendship, etc), but don't believe any of the mumbo-jumbo, but I don't think that's what you mean.)

If you've got some examples of such people, please present them.

OTOH, once you get to timid theistic statements such as universalist, the system works fine; 's'where the well-known militant atheists come from.

FWIW, I'm a former Orthodox Jew who had a little crisis of faith, and got over it. Now i'm a "weak agnostic"/"naturalist".

[Rhodmhire]

Being a Catholic myself, my initial response is to go with:

Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant: Often not sola scriptura. Usually accepts evolutionary theory. Still takes most of the bible seriously.

However, I often lean towards what you defined as moderate theist--since I tend to take a greater chuck of Biblical text in symbolic terms--opposed to what many literalistic believers (obviously) and even many of my fellow Catholics take in as literal.

[Rhodmhire]

I smell trolls approaching...

It's so cute, can I keep it?

[Allbeama]

I don't know what QFT actions or epiphenomena are. Do they give you money for your teeth, or steal your kidneys?

QFT stands for quantum field theory (and quoted for truth, but you already knew that). Actions such as the transfer of virtual photons is what I was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomena

Basically, Newton's laws, the solidity of objects, consciousness, etc.

I like quantum theory! Its like scientific philosophy!

[Tunizcha]

I'm a Materialist.

[Allbeama]

So the whole and the parts don't commute and don't share eigenvalues?

You're well aware I could now enter a discussion on this topic, but to what end? Nobody would understand it, except the two of us, and perhaps a few browsing geeks. It would be an enormous investment of energy into something completely fruitless. Please keep the things simple enough to be understandable to most of the readers.

I'm trying to follow it and think I maybe get 50%-75% of it.
What is an eigenvalue?

[The Realm of The Realm]

Between the Agnostic and Gnostic I proposed a fulcrum point that I would call Existentialist -- the universe happens to be constructed in such a manner that it (a) is partially visible to itself and (b) maximizes the degrees of freedom to interpret what is seen.

From the radical pantheist POV: In other words, there is no inherent meaning in what we see of the universe that is necessary and sufficient to come to any particular conclusion about what is divine: we are free (consistent with being divine ourselves) to be as agnostic or as gnostic as we wish.

I don't find the gradations on the atheist side of your spectrum to be that useful: I am also a pantheist and also a naturalist and even also a materialist and don't see a conflict. ("Supernatural" is only meaningful when god is "other" .... but this pantheist says: since we're all god, what is typically called supernatural is just ... natural. Any sufficiently advanced science or technology ~appears~ to be magical/mystical/supernatural.)

[Grave_n_idle]

There are two continua, one of certitude and the other of the boldness of the claims you are making. The first is the agnostic/gnostic axis, and the other is the theist/atheist axis.

Agnostic side (Strongest to weakest):

Radical agnosticism: Essentially solipsism or epistemic nihilism. Denies the possibility of knowing anything.

Strong agnosticism: Denies the possibility of ever knowing anything about god/the supernatural.

Weak agnosticism: Has theological positions but claims that too little is known at present in order to have any confidence.

Gnostic side (Weakest to strongest):

Weak gnosticism: Has theological positions and is open to the possibility of being wrong but still thinks there is enough evidence to have
confidence

(I would place Richard Dawkins here between the two).

Strong gnosticism: Is nearly 100% certain about currently held theological positions and thinks that considering the possibility of being wrong is a waste of time, because while the belief may technically be wrong the chances of it being so are to small to warrant consideration.

Radical gnosticism: Basically History Land or Bluth but with regards to theology rather than economics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theist side (Boldest to least bold)

Total anti-science/anti-rational: Flat Earthers, Answers in Genesis, Gorilla199 (batshit crazy Christian YouTuber and conspiracy theorist)

Militant Fundamentalist: Al Qaeda, the abortion clinic bombers and shooters, suicide bombers, etc.

Literalists/Fundamentalists: Reject large parts of modern science if it conflicts with their worldview. Believe their holy text is 100% literally true.

Biblical Seriousnessists (could not come up with a better word): Take the Bible (or the Koran or Torah or whatever) very seriously. May take large portions of it literally. Probably reject evolution and old Earth.

Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant: Often not sola scriptura. Usually accepts evolutionary theory. Still takes most of the bible seriously.

Liberal/Moderate Christian: Accepts evolution and all of modern science (all of it they know of until neuroscience advances). Considers large parts of the bible to be symbolic or even errant word of man. Believes in modern sensibility trumping biblical law. Tends not to believe in hell.

Universalist: Believes that the given religion of choice is just one of many, apparently equally valid, paths to get to god. Does not consider any religion to be wrong.

Deist: Does not believe in a personal god, just a prime mover. May not even believe in an afterlife

Atheist side (Least to most bold):

Pantheism: Like Albert Einstein, Percy Byshe Shelley, and Baruch Spinoza. Calls god and nature the same thing. Has a religious belief or attitude toward nature.

Non-Theism: Does not accept that any gods exist. Does not believe in the gods of any given religion.

Naturalist: Not only rejects gods but also rejects any and all supernatural/paranormal claims. Considers epiphenomena to really exist.

Materialist: All that exists is physical phenomena. Considers both QFT actions and particles to really exist. Rejects that epiphenomena are anything more than a convenient abstraction.

Naive Materialist: Believes that only matter exists. Denies that energy or momentum are real.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a more sophisticated picture of what's really going on.

I would place myself probably where Dawkins is. I think the probability that I am correct is rather high. I have yet to conclude whether or not epiphenomena are real, so I'm either a naturalist or a materialist depending.

I don't find those to be very good definitions, personally.

Looking just at the 'Atheist' spectrum - someone like myself that self-defines as an 'Atheist' - but accepts that god(s) could exist, works on the assumption that the evidence suggests it's unlikely, and looks at 'supernatural' claims as being worthy based on the evidence, the same as 'natural' claims... spreads over approximately three of the 5 'definitions'.

[Grave_n_idle]

I haven't been to church in around 11 years yet still identify as a Christian. When I look at biblical text I read it from a symbolism perspective, thus, I am a moderate. By definition, one can not believe in heaven and not believe in hell and call themselves a "christian". The ideas of heaven and hell are just not mutually exclusive. All "moderates" must in fact either subscribe to the notion that both exist or that neither exist. That being said, I have lived in numerous states, been to various churches, dealt with hundred os people on campaigns, etc... The notion of belief in hell being hard to find anymore among moderates is plain lunacy.

'Christians' MUST believe in a literal heaven and hell, or else they're not 'christians'?

I don't find your definition of 'moderate' Christianity to be very convincing.

[Jordaxia]

I'm afraid I can't visualise your graph nor understand most of the terms you use. It may be more accurate, but it's certainly less easy to grasp.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I don't find those to be very good definitions, personally.

Looking just at the 'Atheist' spectrum - someone like myself that self-defines as an 'Atheist' - but accepts that god(s) could exist, works on the assumption that the evidence suggests it's unlikely, and looks at 'supernatural' claims as being worthy based on the evidence, the same as 'natural' claims... spreads over approximately three of the 5 'definitions'.

You find supernatural claims to be likely? Why?

Also, an atheist who admits the possibility that they can be wrong still fits into the atheist category. You just also fit into the weak agnostic or strong agnostic category as well.

[Allbeama]

I'm afraid I can't visualise your graph nor understand most of the terms you use. It may be more accurate, but it's certainly less easy to grasp.

I think he's going for something like the political compass graph....

[Riveara]

There are two continua, one of certitude and the other of the boldness of the claims you are making. The first is the agnostic/gnostic axis, and the other is the theist/atheist axis.

Agnostic side (Strongest to weakest):

Radical agnosticism: Essentially solipsism or epistemic nihilism. Denies the possibility of knowing anything.

Strong agnosticism: Denies the possibility of ever knowing anything about god/the supernatural.

Weak agnosticism: Has theological positions but claims that too little is known at present in order to have any confidence.

Gnostic side (Weakest to strongest):

Weak gnosticism: Has theological positions and is open to the possibility of being wrong but still thinks there is enough evidence to have
confidence

(I would place Richard Dawkins here between the two).

Strong gnosticism: Is nearly 100% certain about currently held theological positions and thinks that considering the possibility of being wrong is a waste of time, because while the belief may technically be wrong the chances of it being so are to small to warrant consideration.

Radical gnosticism: Basically History Land or Bluth but with regards to theology rather than economics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theist side (Boldest to least bold)

Total anti-science/anti-rational: Flat Earthers, Answers in Genesis, Gorilla199 (batshit crazy Christian YouTuber and conspiracy theorist)

Militant Fundamentalist: Al Qaeda, the abortion clinic bombers and shooters, suicide bombers, etc.

Literalists/Fundamentalists: Reject large parts of modern science if it conflicts with their worldview. Believe their holy text is 100% literally true.

Biblical Seriousnessists (could not come up with a better word): Take the Bible (or the Koran or Torah or whatever) very seriously. May take large portions of it literally. Probably reject evolution and old Earth.

Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant: Often not sola scriptura. Usually accepts evolutionary theory. Still takes most of the bible seriously.

Liberal/Moderate Christian: Accepts evolution and all of modern science (all of it they know of until neuroscience advances). Considers large parts of the bible to be symbolic or even errant word of man. Believes in modern sensibility trumping biblical law. Tends not to believe in hell.

Universalist: Believes that the given religion of choice is just one of many, apparently equally valid, paths to get to god. Does not consider any religion to be wrong.

Deist: Does not believe in a personal god, just a prime mover. May not even believe in an afterlife

Atheist side (Least to most bold):

Pantheism: Like Albert Einstein, Percy Byshe Shelley, and Baruch Spinoza. Calls god and nature the same thing. Has a religious belief or attitude toward nature.

Non-Theism: Does not accept that any gods exist. Does not believe in the gods of any given religion.

Naturalist: Not only rejects gods but also rejects any and all supernatural/paranormal claims. Considers epiphenomena to really exist.

Materialist: All that exists is physical phenomena. Considers both QFT actions and particles to really exist. Rejects that epiphenomena are anything more than a convenient abstraction.

Naive Materialist: Believes that only matter exists. Denies that energy or momentum are real.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a more sophisticated picture of what's really going on.

I would place myself probably where Dawkins is. I think the probability that I am correct is rather high. I have yet to conclude whether or not epiphenomena are real, so I'm either a naturalist or a materialist depending.

I have to say, this is the only (and I actually mean only) intelligent thing anyone's ever come up with about religion. And I'm not just talking about the nationstates forum, I mean whoever I've meet.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I'll call myself Weak Agnostic (with a side order of What Could It Possibly Matter?) and Weak Theist (kinda Pantheist, consider all religions worthy of interest but not belief. Our Gods illustrate a real human interest, they are a part of our Humanity. As with reading fiction, one must suspend disbelief to "get it.")

Curious I am, about why the OP places Dawkins on the Gnostic side of that divide. I would place him near

Weak agnosticism: Has theological positions but claims that too little is known at present in order to have any confidence.

... and probably to the Strong Agnostic side, since "the lack of evidence is evidence of lack" underlies much of his polemic.

I've only read one of Dawkin's books. But the chapter "Why there is almost certainly no God" was the core of it, and was not even a bit equivocal.

Now I go read thread. This is probably answered already.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'll call myself Weak Agnostic (with a side order of What Could It Possibly Matter?) and Weak Theist (kinda Pantheist, consider all religions worthy of interest but not belief. Our Gods illustrate a real human interest, they are a part of our Humanity. As with reading fiction, one must suspend disbelief to "get it.")

Curious I am, about why the OP places Dawkins on the Gnostic side of that divide. I would place him near

Weak agnosticism: Has theological positions but claims that too little is known at present in order to have any confidence.

... and probably to the Strong Agnostic side, since "the lack of evidence is evidence of lack" underlies much of his polemic.

I've only read one of Dawkin's books. But the chapter "Why there is almost certainly no God" was the core of it, and was not even a bit equivocal.

Now I go read thread. This is probably answered already.

I consider the gnostic side not to be simply "I'm absolutely certain." but all positions in which you think a degree of certainty is possible at the present moment. As The God Delusion does run through arguments as to why god's existence is highly improbable, I would place Dawk on the gnostic side. He isn't absolutely certain, but he clearly believes that a high degree of certitude is possible.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't find those to be very good definitions, personally.

Looking just at the 'Atheist' spectrum - someone like myself that self-defines as an 'Atheist' - but accepts that god(s) could exist, works on the assumption that the evidence suggests it's unlikely, and looks at 'supernatural' claims as being worthy based on the evidence, the same as 'natural' claims... spreads over approximately three of the 5 'definitions'.

You find supernatural claims to be likely? Why?

Also, an atheist who admits the possibility that they can be wrong still fits into the atheist category. You just also fit into the weak agnostic or strong agnostic category as well.

I didn't say I find supernatural claims to be likely - I said I judge whether or not they are worthy based on the evidence - exactly as I do with natural claims. Thus - 'ghosts' are likely to be found wanting, because the evidence is wanting... just as 'dark matter' is unconvincing because the evidence is unconvincing.

I'm aware that my position is atheism (and even agnostic), my objection is to how your organisation of those characteristics fails to adequately accomodate. As I said, just looking at my Atheism for a moment - I'm apparently spread over approximately 3 of your 5 categories - that's not an 'accurate categorisation' by any stretch of the imagination - it's creating brackets that are NOT exclusive and that do NOT adequately contain all the options. It's almost the exact opposite of 'accurate categorisation'.

And I'm only looking at one 'axis', and only one set of values ON that axis.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I didn't say I find supernatural claims to be likely - I said I judge whether or not they are worthy based on the evidence - exactly as I do with natural claims. Thus - 'ghosts' are likely to be found wanting, because the evidence is wanting... just as 'dark matter' is unconvincing because the evidence is unconvincing.

I'm aware that my position is atheism (and even agnostic), my objection is to how your organisation of those characteristics fails to adequately accomodate. As I said, just looking at my Atheism for a moment - I'm apparently spread over approximately 3 of your 5 categories - that's not an 'accurate categorisation' by any stretch of the imagination - it's creating brackets that are NOT exclusive and that do NOT adequately contain all the options. It's almost the exact opposite of 'accurate categorisation'.

And I'm only looking at one 'axis', and only one set of values ON that axis.

But the thing is, if we found scientific evidence for ghosts, they would be a natural, not a supernatural phenomenon. By saying that you evaluate the evidence for supernatural claims, you've already admitted to being a naturalist because you believe that if ghosts exist, they have some explanation. Anything which lends itself to study and explanation is natural. Thus if ghosts exist, your methods must conclude that they are natural.

[Grave_n_idle]

But the thing is, if we found scientific evidence for ghosts, they would be a natural, not a supernatural phenomenon. By saying that you evaluate the evidence for supernatural claims, you've already admitted to being a naturalist because you believe that if ghosts exist, they have some explanation. Anything which lends itself to study and explanation is natural. Thus if ghosts exist, your methods must conclude that they are natural.

Your assertion is an evasion, and not logical or consistent.

If we find an evidence for ghosts that completely defies natural study and explanation, but IS a consistent and adequate evidence - my willingness to entertain consideration of that evidence immediately precludes being a pure naturalist, by your definitions.

Your own bias, perhaps, is clouding your ability to judge the accuracy of your categorisation.

[CanuckHeaven]

Oh this will be fun.

Especially since atheism has been included in this summary of "A More Accurate Categorization of Religion".

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Your assertion is an evasion, and not logical or consistent.

If we find an evidence for ghosts that completely defies natural study and explanation, but IS a consistent and adequate evidence - my willingness to entertain consideration of that evidence immediately precludes being a pure naturalist, by your definitions.

Your own bias, perhaps, is clouding your ability to judge the accuracy of your categorisation.

What is non-scientific evidence and how could it possibly make sense? It seems logically inconsistent.