Since this is my first post I think I should introduce myself a bit.
I'm a student at the University of Florida studying Environmental Engineering and atmospheric chemistry. I love mountain biking, trail riding, and participating in triathlons. I also consider myself to be quite a proficient pianist. I spend much of my time divided between my studies and my hobbies. Hopefully I've laid some sort of basis for commonality so far
Hi and welcome to the forum. You should probably post this portion into the 'intro' part of the forum for the expressed purpose of introducing yourself.
Now onto my question -
I just recently "discovered" this website and the questions it raises certainly gives me a headful of thoughts to mull over. I've never fully alligned my system of beliefs with fundamentalists of any kind, and have always chosen to see God in a syncretistic manner.
Could you expand on this?
To me, the question of God "answering" prayers is invalid because I think that divine intervention in our frivolous affairs actually diminishes the potency and glory of the God I choose to worship.
Bravo! You have successfully answered the WWGHA question in the only manner in which it can even be challenged. That is to admit that miracles simply do not occur or cannot occur. The opposite side of the coin is to admit limitations as well as a purpose/intent of said god that runs contrary to the human condition that people emotionally identify with.
I know its hard to believe, but this seemingly irrelevant and easily made admission escapes most of the theist that come here. I would speculate because so many often base their beliefs on the idea that miracles do occur or have occurred in their own lives since many claim to have had 'experiences' to that effect.
I see God in a sort of pan-deistic duality.
Could you expand upon this? Could you explain the duality?
In addition, I believe that faith in such a being holds credence because the views I espouse qualify under a classification of "proper basicality".
I am familiar with Plantinga's use of "Proper Basicality" and I have to say that its so poor a qualifier for belief that it can be used like a tautology for belief in anything. It just begs the question and demands for some reason that it need be believed at all because it just ignores the primary problem by presenting a red herring.
As for prostelyzing others to my views, I hold a sort of "Jamesian" Pragmatism - I follow the "Christian tradition" solely because of the strength of personal experience and effect it accrues to its members. Note - I am making no claim on the way these experiences support the veracity of a specific theism claim, only their pure pragmatic effect and why I choose to follow the "Christian tradition" based off of them (the experiences).
I would disagree only on the contention that 'christianity' cannot be reduced to any specific objective ideology or philosophy. The religious scripture is so vague and often so contradictory, that it lends itself to almost any conclusion. I question any intellectual connection between pragmatism and the scripture itself.
To summarize - I don't believe in answered prayers, miracles, divine intervention, or any of that humdrum. I do, however, eagerly worship with fellow Christians of all types and keep my mind and conscience in such a state that while in worship to my God I can feel the same emotional fervor as if I held some more "fundamental" belief.
So do you also fall in step when christians are busy voting their religious creeds into law or want their bigotry to be part of the function of the state?
If you don't or if you are part of a more liberal/moderate church, do you work to make the positive change you claim to follow?
I see nothing egregious or flawed with the beliefs I hold and am asking in kindness if any of you have any viable deconstructions or criticisms of my worldview.
Well, you don't have to ask in kindness because I will criticize anything in front of me ( as well as receive the same cheerfully ). My only problem thus far is that your claims are so flimsy and hiding behind metaphors that you arn't really claiming anything at all that you can't simply sidestep by claiming you don't believe it. You havn't provided enough detail to what you believe or why you believe it.
*Note: I do not think you are deluded simply because you claim to believe in a god ( whatever a god is ).