Are you an Ietsist?
Yes
12.6% (12)
12.6% (12)
No, I'm truly religious
7.4% (7)
7.4% (7)
No, I'm a little more religious than an Ietsist
6.3% (6)
6.3% (6)
No, I'm a little less religious than an Ietsist
9.5% (9)
9.5% (9)
No, I'm an atheist
62.1% (59)
62.1% (59)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Are you an Ietsist?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

'Ietsism' seems to be a Dutch phenomenon. Fortunately, Wikipedia has an article about it.

Ietsism (Dutch: Ietsisme - "Somethingism") is an unspecified belief in some higher force.[1] It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect - or indeed believe - that there is "More between Heaven and Earth" than we know about, but on the other hand do not necessarily accept or subscribe to the established belief system, dogma or view of the nature of God offered by any particular religion. The nearest English language equivalent terms are agnostic theism and deism.

In contrast to traditional agnostics who often hold a skeptical view about gods or other metaphysical entities (i.e. "We can't or don't know for sure that there is a God"), "Ietsists" take a viewpoint along the lines of, "And yet it feels like there is something out there...."

An opinion poll conducted by the Dutch daily newspaper "Trouw" in October 2004 indicated that some 40% of its readership felt broadly this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

Since 1966 the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands [http://www.scp.nl/english/] has sounded at regular intervals the religious feelings of the citizens of that country. Tomorrow 15 April, 2007 the newest report will be made public. The report can be summarized as follows : in the Netherlands belief in God continues to decrease.

Fewer and fewer people attend church and a small minority of citizens believes in a God and in an afterlife. For the 40 percent who still consider themselves believers, on the other hand, their faith is becoming a more significant aspect of their life. At least they acknowledge the role of the church as a 'moral anchor' and a 'source of meaning' in life.

The opinions of a representative sample of 1132 Dutch citizens show a consistent trend compared with the earlier inquiries. Comparing the results from 1966 with the newly collected outcomes, we see that
- atheism (there is no God) increases from 6% in 1966 to 14% in 2006;
- agnostics (existence N/A) increase from 16% in 1966 to 26% in 2006;
- "ietsisme" (something-ism) not measured previously, but 26% in 2006;
- afterlife decreased from 56% in 1966 to 40% in 2006;
- belief in 'heaven' has dropped to 21% in 2006.

Religion has become a 'life style' commodity: sometimes it is fun and sometimes it may offer support or a way of expressing one's feelings. Churches compare with hospitals: its good that we have them but in both cases you do better if you can stay away from them.

Attempts at restoring the old customs won't work. The spiritual -- including 'ietsism', that is the unspecified belief in some higher force - has become a highly personal aspect of life. The established churches will be tolerated if and only if they succeed in being socially meaningful, that is, service-oriented; provided they do so with a minimum of metaphysical ballyhoo.
http://richarddawkins.net/users/6333/comments?page=1

Are you an Ietsist? What do you think of Ietsism? Do you consider 'Ietsists' to be religious? Is 'Ietsism' a religion?

REGARDING PRONUNCIATION

I mentally 'pronounce' everything I read and I think a lot of you do the same, so it must be strange to read the Dutch word 'Ietsism' for a lot of you. I think English lacks the Dutch 'ie'. 'ie'='ee', as in 'asleep' or 'agree'. So it's pronounced like 'eets-ism'. If I'm right :)

Seems very... nebulous. Even more so than deism usually is. It almost sounds like semi-organized, very uncertain deism. I think this is probably a way of thinking that I personally hit on my way to being an atheist.

Danyal:
What do you think of Ietsism?

Seems silly to me. It's like saying "I believe in something of which I have no understanding." What does higher force even mean? It's right up there with being spiritual.

Oh, Danyal is unsuspended.

Erm...well...hard to say. This seems like a known unknown thing to me. We know there is more than we know, but we don't know what it is, of course.

WouldYouKindly:
Seems very... nebulous. Even more so than deism usually is. It almost sounds like semi-organized, very uncertain deism.

*Googles 'nebulous'*

1. Cloudy, misty, or hazy.
2. Lacking definite form or limits; vague

Well, that seems right. But doesn't "being nebulous about *religion*" seem quite reasonable? It's not like the existence of God/Gods/heaven/afterlife/'the supernatural' is very clear and obvious.

Why do you think it's semi-organized?

Walter Byers:
Seems silly to me. It's like saying "I believe in something of which I have no understanding."

It's not really believing. As the OP states;
'people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect'
It's just "I think there might be more between heaven and earth, there is 'something'(something=iets)"

Instead of a lot of religious people who claim that science and logic aren't valid tools to research God, but on the other hand have 'knowledge' about God, 'ietsists' just think there is "something more" without defining what this is. Because we don't know what it is. It seems a lot less silly than being sure about it.

Walter Byers:
What does higher force even mean?

We don't know. That's why I like ietsists. They don't claim "There is a God who is almighty and hates gays and if you question my believes you're a racist", they claim they don't know. Like Bill Maher.

And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.

Walter Byers:
It's right up there with being spiritual.

Is that a problem?

As there is no option for "somewhere between letsist and atheist" I chose less religious than letsist. I consider myself an "agnostic atheist" because, though I haven't been shown adequate enough proof that a god does exist, I'm agreeable with the idea that one could exist, and await conclusive evidence.

Danyal:
It's just "I think there might be more between heaven and earth, there is 'something'(something=iets)"

Heaven has to be demonstrated for that definition to have any meaning.

Danyal:
'ietsists' just think there is "something more" without defining what this is. Because we don't know what it is. It seems a lot less silly than being sure about it.

There could be things out there we don't know about? That's all the word means? It's pretty easy to demonstrate that human knowledge has plenty gaps. Silly seems about right. I can't think of a single person who couldn't have the the label ietsists apply to them.

Danyal:
they claim they don't know. Like Bill Maher.

So they are just agnostics then? That what agnostic means. Without knowledge. Or are the claiming a higher power does exist but we don't know what it is?

Danyal:
Is that a problem?

Yeah. Nailing down a definition for spiritual is pretty much impossible. There's probably as many definitions as are people who choose to use that label. Saying you're spiritual doesn't tell me anything.

I don't really see much difference between this and deism if I'm honest.

I am well aware of and am (at least for now)willing to accept the fact that there is more to this existence than science can currently explain or quantify, and am not strictly convinced that science will necessarily be able to explain it in the future. I am however reasonably convinced that no organized religion I am familiar with represents or even is capable of representing that "something more"

To put it another way, if we ever find evidence that there is some kind of universal energy or specific deity that does not, at least currently, directly intervene in the world, as opposed to being with the groups going "Hah! I/we knew it all along", or "BS, it must be fake", I'm more likely to simply think, "that's interesting, and it does explain a few things", and move on, for the most part as I had before.

If that's enough to qualify, I suppose that yes I could call myself an Ietsist.

Hazy992:
I don't really see much difference between this and deism if I'm honest.

Deism still specifically involves the notion of an intelligent creator, not all existential theories involve a specific divine being at all. To put it another way, Deists could also be considered Ietsists, but only a portion of Ietsists would be Deists.

Danyal:

WouldYouKindly:
Seems very... nebulous. Even more so than deism usually is. It almost sounds like semi-organized, very uncertain deism.

*Googles 'nebulous'*

1. Cloudy, misty, or hazy.
2. Lacking definite form or limits; vague

Well, that seems right. But doesn't "being nebulous about *religion*" seem quite reasonable? It's not like the existence of God/Gods/heaven/afterlife/'the supernatural' is very clear and obvious.

Why do you think it's semi-organized?

That was a misconception on my part.

It seems a very hard to define this belief since it falls in between other more established beliefs and is full of maybes.

Walter Byers:

Danyal:
It's just "I think there might be more between heaven and earth, there is 'something'(something=iets)"

Heaven has to be demonstrated for that definition to have any meaning.

Maybe it's only a Dutch phrase, but when people here talk about there being "more between heaven and earth", they mean something like "the supernatural".

Walter Byers:
There could be things out there we don't know about? That's all the word means? It's pretty easy to demonstrate that human knowledge has plenty gaps. Silly seems about right. I can't think of a single person who couldn't apply the label ietsists.

Well, it's about 'the supernatural' and 'spirituality'. So they mean something like an afterlife, or reincarnation, or Gods, or angels, or ghosts, or something like that exists.

Walter Byers:
So they are just agnostics then? That what agnostic means. Without knowledge. Or are the claiming a higher power does exist but we don't know what it is?

It's kind of comparable with agnosticism. But agnosticism has that crappy definition...

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims-are unknown or unknowable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

That's certainly not Ietsism. And I think that using that definition, nobody is an agnostic. I mean, if the Bible is right, God appears to some people, God talks to some people, Jesus resurrected the dead and performed amazing miracles. How could that be 'unknowable'?

Walter Byers:
Yeah. Nailing down a definition for spiritual is pretty much impossible. There's probably as many definitions as are people who choose to use that label. Saying you're spiritual doesn't tell me anything.

I think 'spirituality' contains a lot of 'ideas' and practices, while Ietsism is just that - Ietsism. Those people aren't convinced that this or that is true and that it works. Best way to describe it.. The Matrix! :D

I know *exactly* what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Hazy992:
I don't really see much difference between this and deism if I'm honest.

?!?!?!?!!

According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Imagine someone nearly escapes an accident. An ietsist is strengthened in his believes; "something"(=iets, in Dutch) is protecting him, helping him. He doesn't know exactly what it is, but he suspects it exists.
A deist, on the other hand, 'knows' that it is not God or the supernatural, because God made the universe and then 'stepped aside'.

Heronblade:
If that's enough to qualify, I suppose that yes I could call myself an Ietsist.

I do think you must be more than merely 'open' to the notion, you must 'suspect' it.
It's more "maybe" than "not impossible".

And I see you 'corrected' Hazy too ;)

This form of belief is actually quite common in the Netherlands. Don't be so hasty in calling it silly, this is just the belief of people who reject all the world religions, but still feel like "there must be something." What separates them from true religious people is that they don't claim to know exactly what that supernatural force is, and if it even can be called a god.
I think it's just intellectual honesty from people who still need spirituality in their lives.

Danyal:
they mean something like "the supernatural".

That explains why I think its silly then. Supernatural is a whole bucket of worms I'd rather not get in to. Been done to death.

I don't think it's a particularly Dutch phenomenon, although the expression of it might be. It seems a pretty standard approach to secularism.

To me though, they're missing the point, or rather barking up the wrong tree. What is attractive in religion, and what I think people mourn the loss of in secular societies, isn't the "belief", it's the emotional engagement.

And that's what leads me to the conclusion that I'm less religious, because I know very well that what I miss in religion isn't having something to believe in (because let's face it, believing in "something" is no comfort anyway) but the emotion and the theatrical performance of religion itself. This is why traditions like Pentecostalism and even Catholicism are doing so much better than mainline Protestantism, because they understand how to make religion an emotional or theatrical experience.

However, I think it's perfectly possible to view this emotion simply as a desire like any other. The feeling that there's 'something out there' doesn't say anything about whether there actually is, it tells us far more about the desires of the person who says that.

Personally, as soon as I found ways to feel "religious" emotion without believing, I lost interest in reclaiming my faith. I still haven't found Saint Theresa's burning spear, but I don't think I have to go to church to look for it.

This is one of the rare times when I will say what I actually feel about religion personally. You know I'll happily defend the legitimacy of religious practice all day every day, because human culture will be (and already is) poorer without the emotional engagement religion gives us, but at the same time you can find that emotion in all kinds of forgotten and cast-off places. You don't need to "believe" to do it.

evilthecat:
I don't think it's a particularly Dutch phenomenon, although the expression of it might be. It seems a pretty standard approach to secularism.

To me though, they're missing the point, or rather barking up the wrong tree. What is attractive in religion, and what I think people mourn the loss of in secular societies, isn't the "belief", it's the emotional engagement.

And that's what leads me to the conclusion that I'm less religious, because I know very well that what I miss in religion isn't having something to believe in (because let's face it, believing in "something" is no comfort anyway) but the emotion and the theatrical performance of religion itself. This is why traditions like Pentecostalism and even Catholicism are doing so much better than mainline Protestantism, because they understand how to make religion an emotional or theatrical experience.

And while I can see why emotional and theatrical experiences are appealing, and while I can see too how religion satisfies this need, religion is 'more' than that. It often involves an afterlife, that's quite comforting seeing how most of us believe we'll die. It explains something about the strange and hard place we're living in. It often gives you a 'friend' who's always there and is always willing to help you.

I think ietsists are barking up the right tree. Or at least, one right tree. They drop the stupid idea that they know exactly how the supernatural works, they reject dogma. Ietsism isn't dangerous, more 'serious' forms of religion are; you're following an ideology that can be very encompassing and dangerous without properly questioning it.
(religious don't work with 'evidence' and are necessarily based in 'faith', and thus, can't be properly questioned)

Walter Byers:

Danyal:
they mean something like "the supernatural".

That explains why I think its silly then. Supernatural is a whole bucket of worms I'd rather not get in to. Been done to death.

I hope we at least agree that it's less silly than 'religions' that are more 'certain'.

Danyal:
'Ietsism' seems to be a Dutch phenomenon. Fortunately, Wikipedia has an article about it.

Ietsism (Dutch: Ietsisme - "Somethingism") is an unspecified belief in some higher force.[1] It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect - or indeed believe - that there is "More between Heaven and Earth" than we know about, but on the other hand do not necessarily accept or subscribe to the established belief system, dogma or view of the nature of God offered by any particular religion. The nearest English language equivalent terms are agnostic theism and deism.

In contrast to traditional agnostics who often hold a skeptical view about gods or other metaphysical entities (i.e. "We can't or don't know for sure that there is a God"), "Ietsists" take a viewpoint along the lines of, "And yet it feels like there is something out there...."

An opinion poll conducted by the Dutch daily newspaper "Trouw" in October 2004 indicated that some 40% of its readership felt broadly this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

Since 1966 the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands [http://www.scp.nl/english/] has sounded at regular intervals the religious feelings of the citizens of that country. Tomorrow 15 April, 2007 the newest report will be made public. The report can be summarized as follows : in the Netherlands belief in God continues to decrease.

Fewer and fewer people attend church and a small minority of citizens believes in a God and in an afterlife. For the 40 percent who still consider themselves believers, on the other hand, their faith is becoming a more significant aspect of their life. At least they acknowledge the role of the church as a 'moral anchor' and a 'source of meaning' in life.

The opinions of a representative sample of 1132 Dutch citizens show a consistent trend compared with the earlier inquiries. Comparing the results from 1966 with the newly collected outcomes, we see that
- atheism (there is no God) increases from 6% in 1966 to 14% in 2006;
- agnostics (existence N/A) increase from 16% in 1966 to 26% in 2006;
- "ietsisme" (something-ism) not measured previously, but 26% in 2006;
- afterlife decreased from 56% in 1966 to 40% in 2006;
- belief in 'heaven' has dropped to 21% in 2006.

Religion has become a 'life style' commodity: sometimes it is fun and sometimes it may offer support or a way of expressing one's feelings. Churches compare with hospitals: its good that we have them but in both cases you do better if you can stay away from them.

Attempts at restoring the old customs won't work. The spiritual -- including 'ietsism', that is the unspecified belief in some higher force - has become a highly personal aspect of life. The established churches will be tolerated if and only if they succeed in being socially meaningful, that is, service-oriented; provided they do so with a minimum of metaphysical ballyhoo.
http://richarddawkins.net/users/6333/comments?page=1

Are you an Ietsist? What do you think of Ietsism? Do you consider 'Ietsists' to be religious? Is 'Ietsism' a religion?

This sounds a bit like agnosticism like, "I think there is something greater than us but I don't know what it is nor am I into any religious belief"

Marik2:
This sounds a bit like agnosticism like, "I think there is something greater than us but I don't know what it is nor am I into any religious belief"

The 'official' definition of an agnostic means a persons who thinks that (certain) knowledge about God/the supernatural/the metaphysical is 'unknowable'.
But people often mean that they "don't know", maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't.

Ietsism is indeed connected to agnosticism and they're quite sure, but it seems agnosticism is focused on the "don't know/not sure" side while ietsism is focused on the "But yet it feels like there is something" side.

Danyal:
I hope we at least agree that it's less silly than 'religions' that are more 'certain'.

Not really. Most religions claim the supernatural. The details are largely inconsequential.

Danyal:
It often involves an afterlife, that's quite comforting seeing how most of us believe we'll die.

Not always though, by any stretch of the imagination.

You've said before that you admire Buddhism. (Some forms of) Buddhism teach that everything in the world is impermanent, that all life is meaningless suffering and that personal existence is a cruel illusion. If the purpose of religion is to feed us comforting certainties about death, then Buddhism fails, and Ietism certainly fails. There are very few religions which posit the comforting certainty of eternal life and happiness.

Danyal:
It explains something about the strange and hard place we're living in. It often gives you a 'friend' who's always there and is always willing to help you.

But again, not always.

What I think is constant, what seems to drive people towards religion, is not the need for belief, that's actually quite a protestant thing and seems to be growing less important as the support structure for "rational" faith is eroded by secularism. But the need for emotional engagement with the conditions of existence, that seems to be fairly constant.

The Freudian assertion that religion is just psychoanalysis for "primitive" people may be really offensive and wrong in some ways, but to say that psychoanalysis is a way of fulfilling emotional needs which were once previously provided by religion.. yeah, I don't find that controversial. It fits with my experience of both psychoanalysis and religion.

I think our reactions to religion would be much better if we could get over this Protestant conceit that it's all about "belief" and nothing else, because actually in most religions throughout most of human history "belief" hasn't been that important. I think if we merely assume that people are drawn to religious belief out of the fear of death or some such thing, we'll probably never really understand religious people.

Sounds like what 'spiritualism' or 'spirituality' has become the catch-all for. I think this sort of thought has come about because of a dissatisfaction with religion, but nobody has replaced it with something else, whether a new religion or something different entirely. Therefore, people don't want religion, and yet they want something it does that isn't being gotten.

Note: I do NOT implicate god as this 'missing thing' at all. Perhaps it is the structured view of the world or precedence or history or world-view.

Danyal:
Snip

What is the difference between letsism and deisism? Just from how you describe it, I don't see much of a difference.

Danyal:
'Ietsism' seems to be a Dutch phenomenon. Fortunately, Wikipedia has an article about it.

Similar things exist in other countries.

Many British self-described Christians are pretty much the same, with extremely vague notions or feelings of a higher power with little or no relevance to established religion.

However, they mostly very nominally adhere to the majority religion (Church of England) or that of their parents rather than separating themselves entirely, although they're generally clueless about Christianity in any meaningful sense. That's most of why about 70% of the UK (polls vary) describe themselves as Christian, but only 10% or so ever enter a church except for funerals, weddings or tourism.

Not G. Ivingname:

Danyal:
Snip

What is the difference between letsism and deisism? Just from how you describe it, I don't see much of a difference.

If you mean 'Deism' instead of 'Deisism'...

Danyal:

Hazy992:
I don't really see much difference between this and deism if I'm honest.

According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Imagine someone nearly escapes an accident. An ietsist is strengthened in his believes; "something"(=iets, in Dutch) is protecting him, helping him. He doesn't know exactly what it is, but he suspects it exists.
A deist, on the other hand, 'knows' that it is not God or the supernatural, because God made the universe and then 'stepped aside'.

So, they are quite literally 'something-ists'?

Wouldn't that put them as an agnostic with the bare minimum possible (bar none) theistic leanings? They think that there might possibly could be a deity/creating/governing force/thing/creature, but they don't presuppose anything more than that? They would quite literally be the least theistic theists possible, short of being an atheist.

To me it seems like an incredibly short-sighted view. It isn't deism, meaning they don't have to necessarily believe that the creator(s)/higher power is revealed through the creation (meaning they have no physical evidence), and it isn't a prescriptive OR descriptive brand of theism, as it doesn't try to actually define the 'higher power' in any way, meaning it is impossible to actually justify the existence of such a power in any way due their being nothing even remotely resembling a working definition. Which means that unlike pretty much every other theistic belief out there, where you can at least have some basic testable constraints (maybe not enough to prove it either way, but at least a place to start), ietism is completely unsupportable. Sure, you can't exactly prove it wrong, but you can't even attempt to justify it in ANY way, meaning ietists sit there and go "I think 'something' exists", and then bugger off and eat a sandwich, not even bothering to try and understand why they feel the way they do, or even what it is they are actually feeling beyond some vague something-ness.

Biosophilogical:
So, they are quite literally 'something-ists'?

Yes :D

Biosophilogical:
Wouldn't that put them as an agnostic with the bare minimum possible (bar none) theistic leanings? They think that there might possibly could be a deity/creating/governing force/thing/creature, but they don't presuppose anything more than that? They would quite literally be the least theistic theists possible, short of being an atheist.

Something like that, yes.

Biosophilogical:
To me it seems like an incredibly short-sighted view.

:(

Biosophilogical:
It isn't deism, meaning they don't have to necessarily believe that the creator(s)/higher power is revealed through the creation (meaning they have no physical evidence), and it isn't a prescriptive OR descriptive brand of theism, as it doesn't try to actually define the 'higher power' in any way, meaning it is impossible to actually justify the existence of such a power in any way due their being nothing even remotely resembling a working definition. Which means that unlike pretty much every other theistic belief out there, where you can at least have some basic testable constraints (maybe not enough to prove it either way, but at least a place to start), ietism is completely unsupportable.

But as far as I know all religions are unsupported. Buddha doesn't give me evidence for reincarnation and Nirvana; Jesus doesn't give me evidence for heaven; Muhammad doesn't give me evidence for Allah's hell.

If you're going into 'unsupportable territory', at least be like an 'Ietsist' and don't make stupid claims without any evidence or proof. It's quite stupid to believe in a complex mythology without any evidence for it; it's way less stupid to believe "There might be something" without exactly defining what this is. Because they don't know, we don't know, so it's better to admit that; "We don't know".

Biosophilogical:
Sure, you can't exactly prove it wrong, but you can't even attempt to justify it in ANY way, meaning ietists sit there and go "I think 'something' exists", and then bugger off and eat a sandwich, not even bothering to try and understand why they feel the way they do, or even what it is they are actually feeling beyond some vague something-ness.

And that doesn't seem as stupid as 'normal' religion...

Average Christian:
Sure, you can't exactly prove it wrong, but you can't even attempt to justify it in ANY way, meaning Christians sit there and go "Jesus exists and by accepting him as my savior I get access to heaven", and then bugger off and eat a sandwich, not even bothering to try and find evidence for the extraordinary ideas they have.

Are you an Ietsist? No. I do not believe in some vague notion of "some higher force". I believe in space-time convergence.

What do you think of Ietsism? I think its a bit of a place-holder really. Its saying I reject the more conventional religious believe systems but haven't found anything I like to replace them with yet.

Do you consider 'Ietsists' to be religious? Is 'Ietsism' a religion? Wikipedia call it "a form of religious liberalism". Whatever. I don't think its useful to make too fine a distinction in these matters. What's important is a person's notion of morality, and that is generally not consciously connected to any particular religious belief but rather gleaned from society and the process of socialization. Witness the fact that mainstream western religions are slave-based religion but most "believers" adhere to many master-based moral ideas.

Nope as a deist I guess the believe the complete opposite, sort of. I think if there is a higher power they wouldn't interfere in ordinary events. Kind of what Danyal said.

Danyal:
-snipped for length-

Okay, seeing as I've snipped you, I'll just quickly summarise your post so that we both know exactly what we are talking about.

You, as far as I understood it, said that the problem I had with ietists (the lack of support) is the same issue with other religious views. While this is true in some cases, the biggest issue I had was the lack of a working definition. Even with a non-interventionist deity, it is possible you could argue against it logically (e.g. Here are some conflicting attributes, making it a logically impossible being), or if you are arguing with a deist, you could raise arguments for why the natural world does/does not necessarily indicate a supreme being. The problem with a ietist is that they make NO claims about anything, meaning there is no way to argue against them (because you cannot possibly know what to argue against in the first place).

It's a problem often found in psychology studies. You need to actually understand what you are testing for, and then construct an operational definition so that these concepts you believe exist can actually be tested for[1]. Ieitists don't HAVE an operational definition. Heck, they don't even have a concept to make INTO an operational definition, meaning it is completely impossible to do ANYTHING with their beliefs except, as I suggested, leave and eat a sandwich.

[1] For example, depression. You can't grab a ruller and 'measure' someone's depression, you need to actually understand what depression apparently is, then go "Well what effects would depression have on a measurable level", then design an experiment to test for those.

Biosophilogical:

To me it seems like an incredibly short-sighted view.

It may seem so on the surface, but in truth, I find people who claim to "know" god much more short sighted and deluded then people who are fully aware that they don't understand the supernatural and divine, but still believe in it.

Bassik:

Biosophilogical:

To me it seems like an incredibly short-sighted view.

It may seem so on the surface, but in truth, I find people who claim to "know" god much more short sighted and deluded then people who are fully aware that they don't understand the supernatural and divine, but still believe in it.

I don't mean short-sighted as in 'wise' or 'reasonable' (though arguably may not be either of those things). I mean that you can't do anything with it. You can't extrapolate from it, because there is no information from which to conclude/deduct/infer anything, and you can't reduce it, because just like the extrapolation problem, there is nothing to work with. It offers no evidence for itself, yet cannot possibly find any either way (it is a position without cause, at least with religious beliefs you could at least semi-justify them (even if you need to bias the evidence with 'hope', or ride the confirmation bias train, to do so).

Biosophilogical:
]I don't mean short-sighted as in 'wise' or 'reasonable' (though arguably may not be either of those things). I mean that you can't do anything with it. You can't extrapolate from it, because there is no information from which to conclude/deduct/infer anything, and you can't reduce it, because just like the extrapolation problem, there is nothing to work with. It offers no evidence for itself, yet cannot possibly find any either way.

I know, isn't it wonderfull?

Biosophilogical:
You, as far as I understood it, said that the problem I had with ietists (the lack of support) is the same issue with other religious views. While this is true in some cases, the biggest issue I had was the lack of a working definition. Even with a non-interventionist deity, it is possible you could argue against it logically (e.g. Here are some conflicting attributes, making it a logically impossible being), or if you are arguing with a deist, you could raise arguments for why the natural world does/does not necessarily indicate a supreme being. The problem with a ietist is that they make NO claims about anything, meaning there is no way to argue against them (because you cannot possibly know what to argue against in the first place).

Please realize that Ietsism is not a traditional organized religion. There is no book, no claim, no group. An 'Ietsist' is a person that hasn't joined a 'big' religion. It's strange, but those persons exist in the Netherlands. At the same time, they aren't convinced there is nothing - because well, we can't prove that, can we? That's what negative atheists acknowledge; God isn't plausible and he isn't impossible. But a negative atheists focuses on the not-plausible side, while an Ietsist focuses on the "But something might exist"-side of things.

Biosophilogical:
It's a problem often found in psychology studies. You need to actually understand what you are testing for, and then construct an operational definition so that these concepts you believe exist can actually be tested for. Ieitists don't HAVE an operational definition. Heck, they don't even have a concept to make INTO an operational definition, meaning it is completely impossible to do ANYTHING with their beliefs except, as I suggested, leave and eat a sandwich.

And that's why Ietsism is great. We don't KNOW ANYTHING about the 'supernatural' or the 'metaphysical'. Claims about the supernatural are unfalsifiable - that's a problem if you 100% believe in it, but that's what Ietsists DON'T do.

As Bassik says...

Bassik:
It may seem so on the surface, but in truth, I find people who claim to "know" god much more short sighted and deluded then people who are fully aware that they don't understand the supernatural and divine, but still believe in it.

Bassik:

Biosophilogical:
]I don't mean short-sighted as in 'wise' or 'reasonable' (though arguably may not be either of those things). I mean that you can't do anything with it. You can't extrapolate from it, because there is no information from which to conclude/deduct/infer anything, and you can't reduce it, because just like the extrapolation problem, there is nothing to work with. It offers no evidence for itself, yet cannot possibly find any either way.

I know, isn't it wonderfull?

I think we have rather different ideas of what is and is not wonderful. It'd be okay if it was a belief that there is still more for us to learn (it is both quite likely, and quite beneficial), but it is about a 'higher power', which is just a completely unfounded and irrational limitation.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked