Theist turning into Agnostic or Atheist (confused)

[Atheist Guru]

Incense,

Your post made three clear implications, which I'll address one by one:

1. Atheism does not have ownership of science.

I agree, and I made no such claim to the contrary.

That being said, I don't agree with you associating science with agnosticism. Your assertion that 'whatever it (science) doesn't know, it doesn't know' is a redundant statement that implies some form of intellectual resignation. The same resignation which agnostics demonstrate when asserting that the existence of a creator CANNOT be known. Science, however is a progressive body of knowledge that continually discovers previously unknown phenomena.

2. I claimed to be the arbiter of a balanced opinion.

Wrong again. My opinion is contrary to the overwhelming bias in the responses within this thread thus far. It is my hope that my voice will serve as a counterbalance.

3. Definition of Atheism.

I'm sorry to say that your extreme definition of Atheism is both outdated and inaccurate. You'll find very few atheists today that identify with it, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

While I'm certain that you're probably immovable in your mindset about this (having been involved with such discussions before), however I invite you to consider the definition that IS philosophically accurate. If you're not interested and are convinced that you're absolutely right about this, then let me know and I won't waste my time explaining it. If you are interested, in the spirt of discussion in these forums, I'm happy to share.

Peace
AG

[Incense]

That's like saying "heat is sun."

No. The person is defining their idea of the divine. I can say Nature is God all the same.

If you go to an Alcoholics Anonymous page, you will see an explanation of the twelve steps, particularly the one about a higher power. It says that many atheists who participate define higher power as the universe or nature. Certainly any of those is a higher power. Is Higher-Power God? Maybe, maybe not, but that is a philosophical question for people who like to split hairs. In any case, "Consciousness is God" is not a meaningless or absurd statement.

[philosoraptor]

No. The person is defining their idea of the divine. I can say Nature is God all the same.

If you go to an Alcoholics Anonymous page, you will see an explanation of the twelve steps, particularly the one about a higher power. It says that many atheists who participate define higher power as the universe or nature. Certainly any of those is a higher power. Is Higher-Power God? Maybe, maybe not, but that is a philosophical question for people who like to split hairs. In any case, "Consciousness is God" is not a meaningless or absurd statement.

Pranams,

The AA people are desperate, and they externalize the ability to help themselves in the form of their "higher power," which they call as such because AA is not a theistic organization. It can't be, since it has to be there for everyone. The point is, this is not a very good example when making a theological comparison.

From a Vedic standpoint, the statement that "consciousness is God" is problematic, like saying "heat is sun," "wetness is ocean," etc. One is an attribute, and the other is the thing possessing the attribute. In vedAnta, we do indeed have statements like "universe is God" or "He is the universe," but these are understood as referring to His indwelling relationship within the thing being described. It is not the case that such statements indicate that God = universe, for the universe is at most a tiny fragment of God's complete attributes. Similarly, the neo-Hindu saying that "consciousness is God" is problematic because consciousness does not completely define the concept of God, nor is it exclusive to God. Living entities also have consciousness, but they are not God.

[Incense]

Pranams,

The AA people are desperate, and they externalize the ability to help themselves in the form of their "higher power," which they call as such because AA is not a theistic organization. It can't be, since it has to be there for everyone. The point is, this is not a very good example when making a theological comparison.

From a Vedic standpoint, the statement that "consciousness is God" is problematic, like saying "heat is sun," "wetness is ocean," etc. One is an attribute, and the other is the thing possessing the attribute. In vedAnta, we do indeed have statements like "universe is God" or "He is the universe," but these are understood as referring to His indwelling relationship within the thing being described. It is not the case that such statements indicate that God = universe, for the universe is at most a tiny fragment of God's complete attributes. Similarly, the neo-Hindu saying that "consciousness is God" is problematic because consciousness does not completely define the concept of God, nor is it exclusive to God. Living entities also have consciousness, but they are not God.

Conscousness is God means that everyone shares in the divinity as participating in consciousness.

Every philosophy is problematic, there is no reason for the scorn of <<That's like saying "heat is sun.">>. Even if consciousness is but a tiny part of what has traditionally been attributed to the divine, nevertheless if that much is all that can be said for now, so be it. When someone says something like "consciousness is God" it's similar to another saying "God is love". It is what one is wishing to say now, not that "God is love, and nothing else, curse be to those who give any other attribute!". To limit the conception of the divine to any number of attributes would be too bold, so obviously that is not the intent. What is meant to say is that is one's approach to the concept of the divine, not that it is the fullness of what God is.

[philosoraptor]

Conscousness is God means that everyone shares in the divinity as participating in consciousness.

I'm really not sure what this means.

Every philosophy is problematic, there is no reason for the scorn of <<That's like saying "heat is sun.">>.

I don't agree that "every" philosophy is "problematic." For starters, I know of no one who is familiar with "every" philosophy, which one would think one would have to be in order to postulate such a rule. But in any case, it was not scorn that you objected to, but scrutiny which you mistook as "scorn." The nature of public forums like these is such that people limited by specific ideological or philosophical boundaries tend to answer open-ended questions with answers representing a narrow philosophical outlook. In such cases, it's most certainly germane to point out the limitations of said answers in an effort to encourage readers to look at the question from a different standpoint.