Black Leaf

So, here are the definitions I am working with for this question.

Atheism: There is no God.

Deism : There is a God, but he is a non-present force. A "watchmaker" who made the universe and went away. Besides the one act of creating, he doesn't perform miracles. He does not interfere or intervene in people's lives.

or to quote from my wikipedia (listed below)

or from http://www.gotquestions.org/deism.html

I contrast Deism with Theism for emphasis:

Theism: There is a god, and he is a present force. He can perform miracles and does interact with creation.

or from wikipedia:

( I am using wikipedia to make these definitions. You can view the article on deism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism )


Ok, so what, if anything, are the major difference in philosophy / life style / practical consequences / other considerations between Deism and Atheism.

I mean, they do seem close. Atheism says there is no God, deism say it doesn't really matter that there is a God.

Is it an intellectual weak position? Someone says "Nature is too fantastic to be around by chance." and arrives at Deism. What are the consequences there? It doesn't seem to be in conflict with science, as evolution seems compatible with Deism.

So, if you are a strong atheist, and you met a deist, what do you think you would say is wrong about his philosophy / world view / religion?

Is Deism totally usurped by Unitarian / Universalism? If not, is there anything more about UUism that is more "wrong" or dishonest or whatever then deism as compared with atheism?

Thanks much!

The Defenestrator

I don't think Deism really explains anything. Basically, Deists assert that the thing that started the Big Bang was intelligent, but then did nothing else. Since we don't (currently) have any way of finding out whether this is true, and it doesn't make an iota of difference to this universe, I think it's pointless.

_Naturalist_

I agree. Deists (some, at least) say that it is a rational religion, where reason and religion meet. I also heard one of them (from the Universists) say that the belief in this god is based on reason, and that it is what science would suggest. I don't see how this could possibly be true. As you say, it's not an explanation of anything, it's just a claim, an unsupported one. I wonder if anyone could explain how deism is more rational than other kinds of theism, except for it making less unsupported and unnecessary claims.

Plognark

Yep, pretty much.

Black Leaf

I think it originates from a desire to explain the apparently miraculous wonder all around us. Basically, nature kicks ass. How did it get here?

Yet, at the same time, miracles in the modern era seem silly. At one time, we couldn't explain things. Now, we can do them ourselves. We perform miracles everyday (heart transplant, resuscitation). They aren't "miracles" in the classic sense because we did them, and we figured out how to do it using our minds and logic.

Perhaps nature too will fall. One day, we will be terraforming planets, creating life in a labrotory, and we will think at that time I am sure that that is pretty miraculous. But, again, the miracle will be from science, not from God.

I think Deism also suggests that the reason God doesn't interfere is because he created a perfect creation, which is perfectly capable of running by itself. This certainly makes sense.

I think Deism is more logical then theism since it tries to reconcile the problem of evil, etc. with the sense of awe people get from the beauty and complexity of nature. Further, it allows for personal autonomy. God won't intervene; I have to do it myself. God gave me a mind, let's use math and science to improve the world.

I think this is in practice close to atheism.

What are the negative personal consequences from such a belief? Does it serve as a phycological crutch of some kind?

Plognark

I agree that Deism is much closer in attitude and practice to atheism than theism.

I don't see many negatives to Deism, but most of the Deists i've known do use it as a minor crutch, of sorts. Kind of an emotional security blanket that, even though the universe is generally cold and uncarring, that there is some sort of designed purpose behind it all, that we're not just a spec of dust in a doomed universe.

However, I can forgive someone that small crutch without batting an eye, as there's really nothing to force on others. It seems, to me, just a small type of hope that something bigger than us and yet similar in mind/thought is out there running the show.

Barefoot Bree

Good point, Ploggy. I certainly have nothing against Deists, either. As you say, there's nothing there to try to force down people's throats, and that's really my main beef with religion - when "the right answer for me" becomes "the right answer - and you must believe it too".

Blech. Leave me alone. We don't want your steeenkin' gods, we have enough trouble with our own.

doubtingt

I would say in content of belief and (more importantly) in epistemological commitments to evidence and reason deists are far closer to atheists than to theists who believe in a personal God based upon faith.

However, I would also say that Deism in a post-Darwin world is still dangerous, because it is no longer rationally defensible and less compatible with the core principles of scientific reasoning than it was pre-Darwin. This is because the strongest argument for the vague "prime mover" idea that Deists accept has always been the argument from design, and examination of Enlightenment Deists reveals that they relied heavily on this argument as the basis of their belief.
"There is great ordered complexity in nature.
No POSSIBLE explanation for this exists other than intended design.
Therefore, a being with intention must have preceeded this order."

The key is that Evolution, regardless of whether it has been "proven" true, posits a POSSIBLE means by which this order could arise without a priori intent. Thus, the neccessary second premise cannot be reasonably presumed and the need to infer intention is gone.

In order to accept Deism in a post-Darwinian world one must subvert the basic principles of reasoned theory evaluation, either directly by accepting the deistic inference without rational justification or indirectly by maintaining the second premise via a rejection of mechanistic evolution as even a "possibility", which cannot be done without some serious breaches of sound reasoning.

In principle, Deists generally accept (or claim to) the principles of reasoning and rejection of faith that are critical to both scientific and social/liberty progress. However, their Deism itself is a deviation from these principles.

As seen in ID arguments, attempts to justify this faith on rational/scientific grounds innevitably leads to perversions and distortions of basic reasoning and scientific principles of inquiry, and such veiled distortions are probably more harmful to understanding and acceptance of these principles than theistic ideas that argue openly against these priniciples rather than attempt to hijack them.

In the short run, Deists may seem more tolerable and compatible with both science and a worldview that lacks any theistic assumptions. However, it would be dangerous not to be clear and explicit that Deism in the modern world is a faith based belief, that if confined to a prime force idea may pose little impediment to reasoned progress, but still represents a deviation from the scientific prinicple of withholding belief in the absence of compelling warrant showing one alternative is more probable than others.

King Rat

The one thing that Deism has over Atheism is that members of the FundyBorg won't try as hard to assimilate you if you say that you are a Deist. As long as you say you believe in some "greater power" they won't throw you on the pyre.

Deism will be my cover if America goes all 'Handmaid's Tale.' Hell, it worked for Jefferson...

trendkill

The concept of evolution did make nonbelief more reasonable, but only by fleshing out an alternative specific belief to the prevailing wisdom. The design arguments would technically still fail in the absence of evolutionary theory, I believe.