In response to the claims against my religion by Giboff and Steve, I declare the following:
My religion is mixed. I have Anglican values and Scientific beliefs, a kind of Gnosticism. Essentially I am saying that in so far as my religious beliefs are concerned where science refutes a claim in the Bible then that claim is not valid. Equally, where science cannot refute a claim in the Bible then that claim should be considered valid (i.e. fill in the gaps) until science can refute it.
From the way I see it, I am not trying to impose myself onto others, I put my views on this site and people can use them as they see fit. They are not compelled to come on this website. The only people who think I’m trying to impose myself onto them are those who are not able to justify their own position as rigorously as I can mine. The people who say to me “I don’t do politics” were doing politics up until the point they said that!
They only moral (i.e. a attitude/value one wants others to adopt as a general principle) I have is that I am against morals and don’t see a place for them in our society. Many other post-modernists share that view. I instead have a personal code of ethics which I live by as others do the 10 commandments – If you look at that code you’ll see that all of the ten commandments are in there!
I feel quite sad for you both, the way that despite how educated you are, the way you are attacking me for creating a belief system, when the basis on which you are attacking it is from an opposing belief system! You both appear to me to be empiricists – That is you think the truth is in the material world and that one should access it through objective observation.
As someone who started my philosophical journey as a constructivist, I think that is delusional myself. You can’t have an idea of an external reality without constructing it! You can’t know whether something is true, without reference to something that is not true. It is you both that are deluding yourselves thinking that you are anymore objective than me.
The fact is my belief system as a scientist reflects that more of an open-minded Agnostic. My religion is essentially that of a Confirmed Anglican who lost faith in Christ as Saviour after reading beyond the Gospels. With my philosophy that of a constructivist then the only option for a religion beyond being Agnostic is being Gnostic. My Gnosticism is based on building what I know about the Abrahamic Texts, with what I know about science, with what I know about how equality law recognises specific aspects of religion such as choices to do with food, clothes, jewellery, etc. which are my own personal likes and dislikes in reference to the scriptures. On this basis, it is quite fun trolling people who actually believe in their religion beyond its basis as a ‘philosophical lifestyle choice’ in Equality Law, especially Atheists like Steve and those who give David’s line legitimacy, like Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
So put simply Giboff – your hunch was right. My religion is more of an instrument shall we say to make life more interesting and justify my personality, especially when it goes up against those people who don’t see themselves as religious, like Steve, attack it in such a way that exposes their religious beliefs. For instance if you look at the definition of belief in the Equality Act 2010:
Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.
On that basis, I am legally entitled to have multiple belief systems, including religious, philosophical etc. Just because some of these are based on justifying my personality, which is a manifestation of various medical conditions and experiences, does not mean it is any less valid in law, as those who actually hold their religious beliefs on par with their philosophical, political and social/personal ones, among others.