Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Troutman's explanation basically means what I suspected him to mean: that he rejects the notion of a "personal" god. However, this post of your has brought to my attention another issue in this whole discussion: the precise definition of "god" is becoming more and more fluid to the point that it becomes unintelligible to speak of it/him in a fairly general context. I seriously doubt that there is a single person in the Western world who does believe in "'god' as comprehended in ancient cultures," and this is in the same sense that no one in the developed world comprehends the cosmos, climate, or the mind in even remotely similar terms as in the ancient world.
I think that this explanation renders the whole question practically meaningless, since among theists the idea of "god" has experienced substantial development.
|
Uggh can't find this article but there is evidence that while more people are leaving organized religion in the US, they are not necessarily going the way of agnostic/atheism, but more "spiritualism" where they define God and their faith how they see fit.
Think, more Deepak Chopra followers.
I honestly think if thats the alternative I hope more people go back to organized religion, my loathing of new agers and especially Chopra knows no bounds
