The Gospel of Unbelief

[CrimsonWhite]

As in we have no actual proof that this stuff is true, so we'll call it an idea.

I'm just quoting a defenition

OK, I'm done debating this nonissue. As fun as it has been, neither side can seem to make sense and both side are making arguments that aren't really relevant. So, I'm backing off, before someone of faith declares a Jihad and it cause an Inquisition.

 

[LOki]

Oke doke Loki, I'm gonna take a stab here. If you think Atheism is a religion, then why can't we also define Secularism as a religion?

Definitions:

religion: A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

secularism: (per Webster)
1. worldly spirit, views, or the like: esp., a system of doctrines and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith and worship
2. the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education.

Line if reasoning:
Secularism is a doctrine based on worldly spirit or views, and rejects - without any proof - that God does not exist within that worldly spirit or views.
You have faith, or a firm belief, in secularism - which has no basis of proof.
Therefore secularism is a form of religion.

Ok. This is something to work with.

First-- for checking me on my definitions--if I'm going to be consistent anywhere, I better be within my definitions.

As for Webster, his second definition does not indicate religion--there are reasons aside from faith by which we might hold the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education. Call it protection from religious persecution, or whatever--beside the point.

In Webster's first definition you provided, we get a choice between "disregards any form of religious faith and worship" and "rejects any form of religious faith and worship." I see that you chose "rejects" which was the stronger case for religion than "disregards." Disregarding religious faith and worship asserts no affirmative (valid/invalid) assertion regarding religious faith and worship, but to use "reject" validly implies an affirmative invalidation of religious faith and worship.

Obviously I'd choose "disregard" because it does not modify definition 2, which is fine by me, and it allows me to accept "rejects" if I'm allowed to reject upon conditions that are not faith-based (to be consistent with my definintions ).

AHA! There it is! I had a problem with Webster's definition of religion because it was self referential and narrow enough that it would exclude schisms, which remain arguably, religions. Likewise, I shall reject (haha!) "rejects any form of religious faith and worship." since no foundations for rejection are stipulated in the definition, that rejection must assumed to be faith-based (as you pointed out), thus in direct contradiction with itself. Can't have that, because it make the term meaningless.

Just noted: Merriam-Webster<blockquote>SECULAR:
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest></blockquote>ALSO<blockquote>SECULARISM:
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations</blockquote>I'm not attempting to invalidate your point by pulling a different reference that yours, but "secular" as I referenced it does not include this notion of rejection. Secular means not religious, rather than "anti-religious" as the "reject" reading implies. The M-W definition of secularism introduces that "rejection" business, but since it gives me an option, as yours source did (but you didn't dawg!), I'm not willing to choose "reject" on the basis above and that "rejection" is not part of the root definition. Maybe it does in your reference, I don't know.

Now, if I may, address this:

Secularism is a doctrine based on worldly spirit or views, and rejects - without any proof - that God does not exist within that worldly spirit or views.

If you are not using the word "doctrine" to mean "dogma"--and you could--I won't bother, I have problems with the source's use of "reject" for the reasons stated previous, and particuarly with the assumption inserted: "without any proof." The assumption is fair, I'll concede, but not neccessary if you can accept that something might be rejected for valid reasons (independent of faith, in this instance).

Then I'm afraid you misspoke with: "... rejects [...] that God does not exist within that worldly spirit or views." It is fair to reject God not existing on the basis that absence of evidence is not proof of absence. I suspect you meant to say: "... rejects [...] that God does exist within that worldly spirit or views." If so, introducing God--the object of faith--introduces begging the question if you insist that "doctrine" is "dogma" and/or that the rejection stipulated is neccessarily baseless in logical proof or evidence (i.e. faith).

I see it this way: "secular" is an adjective. Though it can certainly decribe people, it also appropriately describes things. Secular persons are surely non-theistic--without consideration of the existence of God--and may be agnostic--unsure of the existence of God, in neither case is a statement of faith being used, and it certainly is not being rejected, it's just not applicable. This position is so passive that I'm not comfortable calling them "secularists." They're not rejecting the existence of God as an Athieist does, it's more akin to some monumental ignorance of the concept. But those people who advocate, on the basis of evidence, proof of logic, or reason, that some things (not people) should be secular, can fairly be called secularists as far as their advocacy goes. It allows the Pope to say "Render unto Caesar..., render unto the Lord...." The distincion is not that there is a denial of religion, far from it, but that rather religion (theist or not) is not made a consideration in this area or descision.

I don't mind your desire to call a spade a spade ScreamingEagle, but despite being a black suit--clubs are clubs, despite being on cards--diamonds are diamonds, and hearts are hearts. If you think there are people out there who reject any God, you're right, but they are not secularists. Secualrists can believe in God, most of them do. If you think Atheists are trying to wipe out religion, you may be right--but folks of that clan aren't the only ones trying to wipe out all other religions. Secularists practice religion, but it's not secularism--it's Christianity, Judaeism, Islam, Penatcostalism, Lutheranism, Baptism, Catholicism, Hinduism... you name it. Secularists say religion doesn't belong in Governement (for instance) for the same reasons a live grenade doesn't belong in the hands of a four-year-old. Too dangerous. Not a statement of faith. You can still believe in Jesus while believing (for good reasons!) that Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Pat Robertson, Elvis and/or Jimmy Swaggart should have in no manner any say in how you believe in Jesus--and if you do...WELCOME TO SECULARISM!

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

True. But most religions do. In fact, you want to name a major religion that doesn't? Even a minor one (outsida athiesm if you are a 'believer")... :dev1:

Read Under defining religion.

This shows the many different approaches to indentifying or
even recognizing a religion.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

This one is good too.

I didn't know this.
Atheistic religious organizations
Atheism is not synonymous with irreligion. There are religious belief systems,
including much of Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, and Universism, which do
not require theistic belief. A number of atheistic "churches" have been
established such as the Naturalistic Pantheists, Brianism, and the Fellowship
of Reason.

 

[Dr Grump]

Brianism.

Fwee Woger!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ok. This is something to work with.

First-- for checking me on my definitions--if I'm going to be consistent anywhere, I better be within my definitions.

As for Webster, his second definition does not indicate religion--there are reasons aside from faith by which we might hold the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education. Call it protection from religious persecution, or whatever--beside the point.

In Webster's first definition you provided, we get a choice between "disregards any form of religious faith and worship" and "rejects any form of religious faith and worship." I see that you chose "rejects" which was the stronger case for religion than "disregards." Disregarding religious faith and worship asserts no affirmative (valid/invalid) assertion regarding religious faith and worship, but to use "reject" validly implies an affirmative invalidation of religious faith and worship.

Obviously I'd choose "disregard" because it does not modify definition 2, which is fine by me, and it allows me to accept "rejects" if I'm allowed to reject upon conditions that are not faith-based (to be consistent with my definintions ).

AHA! There it is! I had a problem with Webster's definition of religion because it was self referential and narrow enough that it would exclude schisms, which remain arguably, religions. Likewise, I shall reject (haha!) "rejects any form of religious faith and worship." since no foundations for rejection are stipulated in the definition, that rejection must assumed to be faith-based (as you pointed out), thus in direct contradiction with itself. Can't have that, because it make the term meaningless.

Just noted: Merriam-Webster<blockquote>SECULAR:
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest></blockquote>ALSO<blockquote>SECULARISM:
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations</blockquote>I'm not attempting to invalidate your point by pulling a different reference that yours, but "secular" as I referenced it does not include this notion of rejection. Secular means not religious, rather than "anti-religious" as the "reject" reading implies. The M-W definition of secularism introduces that "rejection" business, but since it gives me an option, as yours source did (but you didn't dawg!), I'm not willing to choose "reject" on the basis above and that "rejection" is not part of the root definition. Maybe it does in your reference, I don't know.

Now, if I may, address this:If you are not using the word "doctrine" to mean "dogma"--and you could--I won't bother, I have problems with the source's use of "reject" for the reasons stated previous, and particuarly with the assumption inserted: "without any proof." The assumption is fair, I'll concede, but not neccessary if you can accept that something might be rejected for valid reasons (independent of faith, in this instance).

Then I'm afraid you misspoke with: "... rejects [...] that God does not exist within that worldly spirit or views." It is fair to reject God not existing on the basis that absence of evidence is not proof of absence. I suspect you meant to say: "... rejects [...] that God does exist within that worldly spirit or views." If so, introducing God--the object of faith--introduces begging the question if you insist that "doctrine" is "dogma" and/or that the rejection stipulated is neccessarily baseless in logical proof or evidence (i.e. faith).

I see it this way: "secular" is an adjective. Though it can certainly decribe people, it also appropriately describes things. Secular persons are surely non-theistic--without consideration of the existence of God--and may be agnostic--unsure of the existence of God, in neither case is a statement of faith being used, and it certainly is not being rejected, it's just not applicable. This position is so passive that I'm not comfortable calling them "secularists." They're not rejecting the existence of God as an Athieist does, it's more akin to some monumental ignorance of the concept. But those people who advocate, on the basis of evidence, proof of logic, or reason, that some things (not people) should be secular, can fairly be called secularists as far as their advocacy goes. It allows the Pope to say "Render unto Caesar..., render unto the Lord...." The distincion is not that there is a denial of religion, far from it, but that rather religion (theist or not) is not made a consideration in this area or descision.

I don't mind your desire to call a spade a spade ScreamingEagle, but despite being a black suit--clubs are clubs, despite being on cards--diamonds are diamonds, and hearts are hearts. If you think there are people out there who reject any God, you're right, but they are not secularists. Secualrists can believe in God, most of them do. If you think Atheists are trying to wipe out religion, you may be right--but folks of that clan aren't the only ones trying to wipe out all other religions. Secularists practice religion, but it's not secularism--it's Christianity, Judaeism, Islam, Penatcostalism, Lutheranism, Baptism, Catholicism, Hinduism... you name it. Secularists say religion doesn't belong in Governement (for instance) for the same reasons a live grenade doesn't belong in the hands of a four-year-old. Too dangerous. Not a statement of faith. You can still believe in Jesus while believing (for good reasons!) that Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Pat Robertson, Elvis and/or Jimmy Swaggart should have in no manner any say in how you believe in Jesus--and if you do...WELCOME TO SECULARISM!

Man, you can really run with your analyzing. :clap1: Great response, however the short reply is, despite your attempts, I can't really see where you actually disproved my theory. It appears to me that you just basically sidestepped it - quite adroitly. You did this by assuming your "option" of variation of meaning to the word secularism, built on that, and thus wiggled free. The fact that secularism has different variations of meaning is something I mentioned a while back, I might add.

The government, by favoring Secularism, is actually establishing a religion. And by doing this, it is also violating our Constitutional right to free expression of our various personal religions.

Definition of Secularism by Robert Green Ingersoll, American orator and freethinker:

Secularism is the religion of humanity; it embraces the affairs of this world; it is interested in everything that touches the welfare of a sentient being; it advocates attention to the particular planet on which we happen to live; it means that each individual counts for something; it is a declaration of intellectual independence; it means the pew is superior to the pulpit, that those who bear the burdens shall have the profits and that they who fill the purse shall hold the strings. It is a protest against ecclesiastical tyranny, against being a serf, subject or slave of any phantom, or of the priest of any phantom. It is a protest against wasting this life for the sake of one we know not of. It proposes to let the gods take care of themselves. It means living for ourselves and each other; for the present instead of the past, for this world instead of another. It is striving to do away with violence and vice, with ignorance, poverty and disease.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_sec_phil.htm

 

[MissileMan]

Man, you can really run with your analyzing. :clap1: Great response, however the short reply is, despite your attempts, I can't really see where you actually disproved my theory. It appears to me that you just basically sidestepped it - quite adroitly. You did this by assuming your "option" of variation of meaning to the word secularism, built on that, and thus wiggled free. The fact that secularism has different variations of meaning is something I mentioned a while back, I might add.

The government, by favoring Secularism, is actually establishing a religion. And by doing this, it is also violating our Constitutional right to free expression of our various personal religions.

The incorrect assumption by one person that secularism is a religion doesn't make it so. Calling the "desire to maintain a separation of religion and government" a "government sanctioned religion" is the epitome of contradiction.

 

[5stringJeff]

Fwee Woger!

Wewease Wodewick!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The incorrect assumption by one person that secularism is a religion doesn't make it so. Calling the "desire to maintain a separation of religion and government" a "government sanctioned religion" is the epitome of contradiction.

That Other Church
Let's face it: Secularism is a religion. Let's treat it as such.
David Klinghoffer

A 2004 survey of religion and politics revealed a religious minority that constitutes at least 7.5 percent of the American population. It referred to this informal denomination as "Secular."

Sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the poll shows the fairly uniform political orientation of secularists: Only 21 percent regard themselves as politically conservative. A large majority, 79 percent, favor what the survey terms "gay rights" and support legal abortion.

For each element in the Judeo-Christian family of faiths, secularism has its counterpart: a strict ethical code, albeit focusing on health issues ("Thou shalt not smoke," etc.); the use of shame when individuals disregard ethical rules (e.g. fat people); a related promise of eternal life through medical advances; a creation story (Darwinian evolution); and so forth. All that's missing is a deity, but not every religion has one, as the case of Zen Buddhism attests.

The secular church is populous and dynamic, with a membership far exceeding that figure of 7.5 percent. Many individuals who identify nominally as Jews or Christians in fact are devout secularists.

All this would be fine&#8212;after all, America is a big country with plenty of room for every spiritual predilection&#8212;but for the tendency of secularists to use aggressive means in advancing their political agenda and spreading their faith.

Consider state education, where the secular church has ensured that its creation account alone be taught. According to the Discovery Institute, Ohio, Minnesota, and New Mexico are exceptions to this rule, now requiring students to know about scientific evidence critical of Darwinian evolution. Everywhere else, evangelism for this secular doctrine is a staple of 10th-grade biology class.

The prejudice on behalf of the secular faith emanating from the media is likewise hard to ignore. HBO's Bill Maher, raised Catholic but later converted to a harsh secularism, is among the frankest of news and entertainment industry figures in his contempt for competing religions, notably Christianity. The host of Real Time with Bill Maher speaks of himself as "spreading the anti-gospel."

Americans outside the secular fold need to develop responses to the encroachments of secularism in the public square. Mutual understanding is key. Many secularists live in isolated enclaves (Beverly Hills, San Francisco, certain New York City neighborhoods, etc.) with few members of other faiths present. Some sort of interfaith dialogue, matching representatives of secularism with believing Jews, Christians, and members of other religions, would do some good.

But it's not the entire solution. So that everyone can know where everyone else stands, it's time to start identifying the secular faithful as such. The word Secular should be capitalized, indicating a distinctive philosophical orientation. So, just as Mel Gibson is always referred to as a Catholic filmmaker, Michael Moore should be identified as a Secular one.

The influence of Secular institutions on education needs to be reexamined. Young children are plainly being targeted for conversion to Secularism, whether in schools or otherwise. The Anti-Defamation League&#8212;a group that is Jewish only in the sense that bagels are Jewish&#8212;has been advocating a reading list of books for children of kindergarten age through sixth grade. While the emphasis is ostensibly on "anti-bias education," any child who takes to heart the message of these books would be adopting, among other things, a bias in favor of the Secular teaching on homosexuality.

Two of the recommended books, for third-graders and under, are Gloria Goes to Gay Pride ("A young girl participates in the Gay Pride Day parade," as the ad's website summarizes the book) and My Two Uncles ("A young child's grandfather has trouble accepting the fact that his son is gay"). This amounts to targeting kids for conversion to the Secular teaching on homosexuality. Incidentally, "targeting for conversion" is what the ad charges that Christian missionaries want to do to Jews.

Finally, since raising public awareness is the best way to counter conversionary efforts, it would be helpful if a nonprofit organization were established to educate the citizenry about the tendency of the Secular Church to overstep that precious line that is supposed to keep our public institutions free of undue church influence. Such an organization would be dedicated to protecting American civil liberties. You could call it the American Civil Liberties Union.

Oh wait, no, that's taken.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/001/17.62.html

 

[MissileMan]

That Other Church
Let's face it: Secularism is a religion. Let's treat it as such.
David Klinghoffer

A 2004 survey of religion and politics revealed a religious minority that constitutes at least 7.5 percent of the American population. It referred to this informal denomination as "Secular."

Sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the poll shows the fairly uniform political orientation of secularists: Only 21 percent regard themselves as politically conservative. A large majority, 79 percent, favor what the survey terms "gay rights" and support legal abortion.

For each element in the Judeo-Christian family of faiths, secularism has its counterpart: a strict ethical code, albeit focusing on health issues ("Thou shalt not smoke," etc.); the use of shame when individuals disregard ethical rules (e.g. fat people); a related promise of eternal life through medical advances; a creation story (Darwinian evolution); and so forth. All that's missing is a deity, but not every religion has one, as the case of Zen Buddhism attests.

The secular church is populous and dynamic, with a membership far exceeding that figure of 7.5 percent. Many individuals who identify nominally as Jews or Christians in fact are devout secularists.

All this would be fine—after all, America is a big country with plenty of room for every spiritual predilection—but for the tendency of secularists to use aggressive means in advancing their political agenda and spreading their faith.

Consider state education, where the secular church has ensured that its creation account alone be taught. According to the Discovery Institute, Ohio, Minnesota, and New Mexico are exceptions to this rule, now requiring students to know about scientific evidence critical of Darwinian evolution. Everywhere else, evangelism for this secular doctrine is a staple of 10th-grade biology class.

The prejudice on behalf of the secular faith emanating from the media is likewise hard to ignore. HBO's Bill Maher, raised Catholic but later converted to a harsh secularism, is among the frankest of news and entertainment industry figures in his contempt for competing religions, notably Christianity. The host of Real Time with Bill Maher speaks of himself as "spreading the anti-gospel."

Americans outside the secular fold need to develop responses to the encroachments of secularism in the public square. Mutual understanding is key. Many secularists live in isolated enclaves (Beverly Hills, San Francisco, certain New York City neighborhoods, etc.) with few members of other faiths present. Some sort of interfaith dialogue, matching representatives of secularism with believing Jews, Christians, and members of other religions, would do some good.

But it's not the entire solution. So that everyone can know where everyone else stands, it's time to start identifying the secular faithful as such. The word Secular should be capitalized, indicating a distinctive philosophical orientation. So, just as Mel Gibson is always referred to as a Catholic filmmaker, Michael Moore should be identified as a Secular one.

The influence of Secular institutions on education needs to be reexamined. Young children are plainly being targeted for conversion to Secularism, whether in schools or otherwise. The Anti-Defamation League—a group that is Jewish only in the sense that bagels are Jewish—has been advocating a reading list of books for children of kindergarten age through sixth grade. While the emphasis is ostensibly on "anti-bias education," any child who takes to heart the message of these books would be adopting, among other things, a bias in favor of the Secular teaching on homosexuality.

Two of the recommended books, for third-graders and under, are Gloria Goes to Gay Pride ("A young girl participates in the Gay Pride Day parade," as the ad's website summarizes the book) and My Two Uncles ("A young child's grandfather has trouble accepting the fact that his son is gay"). This amounts to targeting kids for conversion to the Secular teaching on homosexuality. Incidentally, "targeting for conversion" is what the ad charges that Christian missionaries want to do to Jews.

Finally, since raising public awareness is the best way to counter conversionary efforts, it would be helpful if a nonprofit organization were established to educate the citizenry about the tendency of the Secular Church to overstep that precious line that is supposed to keep our public institutions free of undue church influence. Such an organization would be dedicated to protecting American civil liberties. You could call it the American Civil Liberties Union.

Oh wait, no, that's taken.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/001/17.62.html

Okay, so you found a second moron who thinks Secularism is a religion. It's still not true. The assertions of the author are no less than a fucking joke.

 

[Hobbit]

Okay, so you found a second moron who thinks Secularism is a religion. It's still not true. The assertions of the author are no less than a fucking joke.

Secularism fits the dictionary definition of a religion. The fact that all secularists refute this fact because being in a religion is supposedly evil is the joke.

 

[MissileMan]

Secularism fits the dictionary definition of a religion. The fact that all secularists refute this fact because being in a religion is supposedly evil is the joke.

Does it fit the SAME definition that you would use to describe Chritianity?

 

[Nuc]

Secularism fits the dictionary definition of a religion. The fact that all secularists refute this fact because being in a religion is supposedly evil is the joke.

Secularists are refuting the idea that you MUST have a religious affiliation. You are talking like a Muslim. In the Muslim countries when you enter you must declare a religious affiliation. Those who choose "none" are held in lowest contempt. Because it is considered better to maintain allegiance to your religion (even if it's the wrong one) than to disavow it.

Secularism is not a religion. It's a way of saying the existing religions haven't figured it out yet, so leave us alone. When you disagree you align yourselves with the Muslims.

But you wouldn't know that because you've never travelled. You have no experience. Just opinions based on a very tiny worldview.

 

[Hobbit]

Secularists are refuting the idea that you MUST have a religious affiliation. You are talking like a Muslim. In the Muslim countries when you enter you must declare a religious affiliation. Those who choose "none" are held in lowest contempt. Because it is considered better to maintain allegiance to your religion (even if it's the wrong one) than to disavow it.

Secularism is not a religion. It's a way of saying the existing religions haven't figured it out yet, so leave us alone. When you disagree you align yourselves with the Muslims.

But you wouldn't know that because you've never travelled. You have no experience. Just opinions based on a very tiny worldview.

What a bunch of redirective horse hockey. It's the classic "compare the other guy to some fascists" tactic, and it won't work here. Stop talking to me.

 

[Nuc]

What a bunch of redirective horse hockey. It's the classic "compare the other guy to some fascists" tactic, and it won't work here. Stop talking to me.

OK I'll stop talking to you and start talking at you. If you can't refute my logic, then don't whine, just walk away. Oh yeah, that's what you did. Never mind.

 

[Hobbit]

OK I'll stop talking to you and start talking at you. If you can't refute my logic, then don't whine, just walk away. Oh yeah, that's what you did. Never mind.

What logic? All you did was say that if I classify everything as a religion, then I might as well be a Muslim. That's not logic. That's name-calling.

 

[Nuc]

What logic? All you did was say that if I classify everything as a religion, then I might as well be a Muslim. That's not logic. That's name-calling.

Your comprehension seems to be weak. You are implying that secularism is a religion on the basis that everybody has a religion, and if you don't secularism is a religion. My point was it's possible to reject religion without having it supplanted by something else.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What a bunch of redirective horse hockey. It's the classic "compare the other guy to some fascists" tactic, and it won't work here. Stop talking to me.

Looks like he pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Fwee Woger!

Was the source of that statement Bigus Dickus?

 

[Bullypulpit]

So Christianity is a logical conclusion?

In a word, yes. Christianity, and any other theistic/absolutist belief system you would care to name, is rooted in deductive or <i>a prior</i> reasoning. This form of reasoning takes us from the general to the specific. Given a premise, depending upon the quality of the information used to support it and how it is manipulated, a formally valid and logically consistent conclusion may be reached. This conclusion may be true or false, thus presenting us with no genuinely useful information.

And this is the flaw of deductive reasoning. In order to make that leap from the general to the specific, it assumes that the genralizations it relies upon are true in <i><b>all</b></i> circumstances, at <i><b>all</b></i> times. It assumes omniscience. Relationships between events and entities are regarded as mere coincidence and have no real bearing on the process. This gives rise to belief in uncaused, mysterious (miraculous) events and entities.

Inductive or <i>a posteriori</i> reasoning however, involves the observation of relations between given events and entities over time. This allows us to infer general principles from specific events. This process is also self-correcting in that as new observations and experience are available, the general principles can be revised or even discarded if they prove to be mistaken or erroneous. But the caveat here is that these observed relationships are not separated from the observed events or entities. To do so would give rise to uncaused events and entities. And this leads to unneccessarry epistemological confusion and right back to the assumptions of the theistic/absolutist beleif systems.