As diferencas entre teismo, deismo, ateismo, panteismo e meu agnosticismo

r-dawkins.jpg

No livro “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins nos brinda com um valioso esclarecimento que normalmente nos causa confusoes. Trata-se do testo abaixo:

Let’s remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist’s metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like ‘God is subtle but he is not malicious’ or ‘He does not play dice’ or ‘Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?’ are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. ‘God does not play dice’ should be translated as ‘Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.’ ‘Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?’ means ‘Could the universe have begun in any other way?’ Einstein was using ‘God’ in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor. Paul Davies’s The Mind of God seems to hover somewhere between Einsteinian pantheism and an obscure form of deism – for which he was rewarded with the Templeton Prize (a very large sum of money given annually by the Templeton Foundation, usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion). . . .

Pelo dito acima parece-me que ele se esqueceu apenas do agnosticismo, o qual e’ justamente meu caso. Talvez Dawkins entende agnosticismo como panteismo, sera’? Em todo caso, a visao de mundo da Matriz nao tem hard-wired meu cerebro como um panteista na definicao de Dawkins: eu desconfio que o mundo todo e’ um ser dividido em hardware e software, que o software pode ser um campo holografico banhando o corpo inteiro, tem que ser inteligente e consciente de sua existencia, como tambem pode ate’ ter consciencia sobre os microbios(como nos, humanos) existentes em seu corpo (cujos microbios sao tambem seu corpo e em alguns casos, tambem sua mente), que pode ate’ ter tomado providencias para que todos os microbios de seu corpo tenham um final feliz ou um nao-final sempre voltado para a sua melhoria, mas… esse ser nao pode ser chamado Deus, porque existe a forte possibilidade de que este ser e este mundo nao ser tudo o que ha’, existindo ainda a possibilidade dos dois mundos auto-excludentes, auto-retroalimentadores, anbos finitos mas formando o infinito, que a Matriz esta’ sugerindo. Portanto, este ser que pode existir e ser este mundo, sera’ apenas a metade do mundo, apesar de que a outra metade nunca exista quando este existe e vice-versa, mas que na outra metade exista outro ser que tambem e’ o outro mundo, e em tudo excludente em relacao a este… e’meio confuso mas eu entendo isto perfeitamente… e a chave para entender e aceitar a possibilidade dos dois mundos esta’ naquela analogia que faco da agua que vai para o Polo Norte e o gelo que vai para o Sul, que escrevo aqui em outro artigo nao me lembro onde…

Tags: