> As I said, deists rather than atheists.
Well, if we're going to fight dirty and use dictionary definitions... My COED defines deist rather differently from this, as per the meaning Peter supplied, and by which pretty much all Malkioni are deists, never mind the Brithini... (Not that I doubt the word's been authentically used in that sense: terminology, schmerminology...)
> Admittedly, it rather depends
> what they think the Creator *is* - is He an uncaring, distant God (deist) or
> just a mechanistic process with no identity or self-awareness (atheist)?
That's a somewhat fine distinction to slice as a means of deciding if someone merits the appelation 'atheist' or not, so I'm not at all sure Greg's on such thin ground as you seem to think. Given the proferred definitions, we might conclude that three consecutive Hindus were variously 'theist', 'deist', and 'atheist', while different perhaps not at all in their religious practice, on the basis of a cosmogenic nuance...
> But 'mainstream' Malkioni magic doesn't come from God either, other than in
> an indirect and rather philosophical sense. (Assorted forms of saint worship
> I may have to grant you...) >>
>
> Its those forms of saint worship I was referring to.
Well, in those cases it doesn't come from _God_ either, it comes in some sense from the Saint, no?
> And they obviously must think prayer serves some purpose (although
> obviously not one with a direct feedback, as in a Heortling religious
> service) or they wouldn't do it.
Well, there's the small matter of getting into Solace, for a start. In some flavours of Malkionism it may also be explicit that this has a 'support your local wizard' sort of function, but I'm not certain of that.
> << Phillip:>Nowadays, it means "There's no evidence, but I believe it anyway"
> Another notion is that of 'emotional truth': it's so because I feel it
> ("know" it) to be so, regardless of Positivists banging on about the
> meaningless of said claims. >>
> Seems to me those two statements are the same - the latter just
> provides the explanation of why 'evidence' isn't needed in order for one to
> believe. But I digress...
Well, they may or may not be the same depending on what you mean by 'evidence'. Given maximally rigorous criteria, can you get much further than cogito ergo sum? (Sorry, Gian.) It's one thing to say you have belief, without what a LP would call a means of verification, (I'm not a religious person, but I'm sure I do that twelve times a day if I trouble to get out of bed at all...), and quite another to say you have a belief on no basis at all. Back in the real world, away from philosophy, law courts, and maths, belief is conditioned by experience, not by proof.
Not that lawyers, philosophers, and mathematicians agree what 'proof' is either, mind...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail