OK. So I’ve been sort of trying to make sense of the Finding a cure for religion thread.
Through the last few pages, there’s been a argument over classical theism.
Now as I understand it, and I admit that my classical reading has a lot of shortcomings, but theism is the idea that there is a god that controls the natural world, everything except for the actions of humans, which is where free will comes in.
Can someone please tell me what the hell classic theism means.
As far as I can tell it’s something made up by you-know-who that means whatever suits his purposes at the time that he uses the term. Seeing as he raised it and given this excellent opportunity to do so, perhaps he’ll expand meaningfully on it a little (which would be to everyone’s total amazement), but I doubt it ’cos I’se a sceptic.
BTW, “what the hell classic theism means” is a pointed choice of words, possibly more apt than a first reading would indicate.
'Luthon64
I am no expert, but from previous conversations with the king of -isms, I think I have been able to figure out the following:
what he means by ‘classical theism’ as opposed to theism of any other nature, has to do with the nature of this supposed supreme being they call god. Classical theism, as applies to monotheistic religions such as christianity, asserts that there is a god that is all powerful and made the world and everything in it and he can do anything and he sent his son down to earth to die for our sins and who is all knowing and blah blah blah. Other theistic beliefs, particularly traditional eastern and african religions, equate the notion of ‘god’, or whatever you want to call the hypothetical supreme being, with everything around them (so, god did not necessarily make the earth, he/she/it IS the earth, and the water, and the cute cuddly little butterflies etc)
Here’s hoping that Tele will contribute constructively to this conversation and tell me if I understand him correctly?
bump
I think this is a useful post to get you started… Deus ex machina?
erm… yes, no actually. That fucking oke just prattles on and on and on about why A-T isn’t a mechanistic view. What a daft cunt. Right toward the end we do get the following however:
At the core of classical theism is the doctrine of divine simplicity (discussed in this earlier post) according to which there is in God no composition whatsoever. He is not “made up” of either physical or metaphysical parts, the way everything else that exists is – of form and matter, say, or act and potency, or essence and existence. Rather, he just is “pure act” and subsistent existence. He is not “a being” alongside other beings, but rather Being Itself. Also central to classical theism is the notion that the world of created, contingent things could not continue in existence even for an instant were God not continuously preserving it in being
roflol
the bolded part I found particularly hilarious. What a way to say nothing at all. Sounds like cocked up pantheism to me. I’m sure w1z4rd would be interested.
Lol, I think it is safe to say that you have never even came across classical theism and seemed to have based your atheism on some straw man version of theism most intelligent and educated theists don’t hold. With Dawkins and Dennett as the “shining” examples of academic atheism these days, I can’t say I am surprised though. Dawkins can’t even differentiate between Paley’s argument and Aquinas’ fifth way, never mind the fact that his central “thesis” in his book (God delusion) is so hopelessly flawed. And poor Dennett hasn’t got a clue when it comes to cosmological arguments that actual philosophers support. I guess if they set examples of academic atheism, people who follow them and swallow everything they are hopeless.
I have come across various forms of God, I reject them all as baseless assertions. This one seems particularly woo woo.
What I find myself wondering is how “pure act” went about impregnating a poor Jewish virgin 2000 or so ago. meh.
What is amazing about this bullshit isn’t shortcomings in Dawkin’s or Dennet’s rebuttals but in the absolute stupidity of accepting such a vacuous, nonsensical, evidenseless premise in the first place. It defies all reason and logic.
Oh wait, it takes faith :
With all this to-do over classical theism (as if that was one cohesive stance), I find myself wondering if a significant part of our protagonist’s troublesome condition can’t be ascribed to being stuck in the intellectual swamp of the Middle and Dark Ages.
'Luthon64
With his continuous reference to A-T philosophy I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
No, Tele… could you please (pretty please) tell me in 5 or fewer well constructed sentences composed of your own words what it is that you want to say. It really shouldn’t be that difficult
At least you know what classical theism refers to now right? No more straw men caricatures? I live is hope lol.
What does “I live is hope lol” mean? Is it classical theism? Is it similar to poephol?
Old Being Itself? The pure act dude? gotcha 
No more straw men caricatures? I live is hope lol.
I am glad you do live is hope. Or sumthing. To my mind it is more shifting goal post innit? “No not that God, classic theism God did it wak wak wak.” Stupid is stupid no matter where you plant your posts.
I still don’t know what you are referring to. Sorry, call me ‘slow’, but I really would like you to react to my earlier request…