(June 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm)cato123 Wrote: I have no problem with the ideas proposed in the articles. I consider it 'atheism on training wheels'.
Spinoza would be proud. If all I had to consider about a fellow human's religious beliefs is that he/she believed in a non-personal entity that he/she chooses to call god that is synonymous with nature; I would be very happy and would likely let the argument drop in favor of more meaningful conversations of nature and humanity.
The second article suggests something similar, but from a different perspective. Dowd strikes me as an atheist in all but name. His emphasis seems to be on everyone getting along for the sake of progressing naturalist and humanist ideas, but wants to hit the reset button on vitriol which he seems to blame on the emotive 'pre-evolutionary' baggage associated with all 'isms'.
If the label 'New Theism' helps people feel comfortable in dropping the last vestiges of their traditional religious indoctrination, I don't see the harm. The training wheels will eventually fall off and, in the meantime, we could enjoy a ride together.
My only concern is how it seems to lead back to a creator. The principle would have to last long enough for it to become the norm. However, the moment a creator comes into the mix, people are likely to assign a personality to it. This philosophy would have to be taught in a text book style, in order for it to ever benefit the human race as a whole. For example, if someone enters the classroom and suggests that God spoke to them, they'd receive a big fat F on their report card.
Another thought has occurred to me; which I think they explain in the first linked article: It's basically saying that we are going full circle, only now we have evolved far enough to form a better understanding of the mysteries labelled as God; and in doing so, we should be in a more comfortable place to label them as such, without assigning supernatural powers to them. Does anyone else agree/disagree?
