TySixtus

Mods, first an explanation. I post this here and not MF&P because I intend the question to deal more with theology (or a lack of it) and less with actual moral principles, specifically.

***

After going around the bend a few times with a deist, I was wondering if any deists could shed some light on the source of morality?

From www.deism.org:

Here is my proposition

1) Deism relies on critcal thinking and empiricism to make decisions.
2) Deism rejects religious dogma.
3) Deists can be as moral as anyone else.
4) Deists therefore must have a source of morality.
----------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:

Deism gains morality from individual thought and reason, and not from commandments from God.

In fact, they say so right here.

Could the deists here on IIDB please tell us, then, where their source of morality comes from if not from making decisions based on compassion, empathy and reason?

Thanks in advance,

TySixtus

funinspace

Good luck getting a coherent answer. It seams that some deists appear to be more of a closet Christian, than a deist. The few deists I have read of, would have little to quarrel with atheists about.

Evoken

To me Deism is just a "cute" way of saying that you are an atheist. The "god" of the deists, if it can even be called that, is devoid of relevance, character, meaning or anything else. They don't even know what they mean when they refer to "god" or the "creator", the first cause?. And their claim that they reject the commandments of theism on the grounds that a being that created the universe would speak to the entire world at once is a crap load of question begging.

But..im open to be convinced otherwise. I wonder how do they know what a being that created the universe would or would not do and how it would or would not choose to reveal itself?


Valz

Ojuice5001

:notworthy

TySixtus

I agree. I see deism as something that evolved- before it was okay to say you were an atheist, you were a deist. "Deist" meant you weren't totally depraved and lacking in morality.

Ooops! Who do I sound like?

Ty

steamer

To me thesim is just a cute way of saying "Listen to us, we know something and we are right cuz god says so." When you ask them how they know they point at a dusty old book of fairytales and say "This is our god, this is our morality". Then you read of their god and find that their morality is whatever they decide a particular passage means. It is very difficult to know that they aren't just making shit up. Then you question them about this god they speak of, because if he does not exist then the bible is false. They give you replies which make one think that god is indeed the very coinage of their brains. Theist/deists, you can't tell them apart without their name tags.

Kosh3

to talk of deists as a unified group is perhaps misleading, because it is each individuals reason which directs their beliefs, and so different deists will have some variance of belief given variance in their reasoning. But as the apparently only deist to speak so far: morality, does, as you say, come from reason.

I think the whole idea of writing off deism on the basis that they were just atheists before it was possible to admit atheism is just rediculous, and shows little understanding of historical deists or deistic philosophy itself. Deism allows for spirituality, not the abandonment of god through making him irrelevant, and that is its value (perhaps people struggle to consider a person as spiritual outside of a direct relation to a perfect being). By doing so, it catches flak from both sides, both religion and atheism, but thats the result of being in the middle.

Rogernme

There are two basic features that distinguish Deism from either Atheism. They are summed up in Thomas Paine's assertion, "God exists, and there it lies."

Deists believe the universe has a purpose; that neither it nor we are here by chance; that there does exist objective truth, goodness, right, wrong; and that human life has intrinsic meaning, value, purpose—things that atheists can’t/don’t believe b/c their universe is accidental, having no inherent meaning/ purpose.

Which is why the Founding Fathers, all deists/theists and no atheists, documented that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

This has been explained to Ty several times—apparently he’s looking for a different answer, perhaps something more in line with whatever he’s conjured up, as he’s so fond of saying, using HIS “OWN FUCKING BRAINS.�? Fuck away Swabbie.

TySixtus

Roger, you once again don't disappoint to be disappointing.

My only problem with deism is the vague attributes ascribed to the creator. Deists admit that there are no credible "signs" or "commandments" from god. They admit to not knowing what it looks like, what it's capable of, and fully expect it to keep out of the affairs of human beings.

So my question is, what good is it? If you can't make a single concrete observation about something, what good is saying it exists.

Having said that, I have much more respect for a true deist than a theist, for the above reasons I mentioned in my opening post. True deists understand that morality comes from reason and empathy, not from lightning bolts from the sky.

Ty

Jobar

Dawkins says "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism; deism is watered-down theism."

I think both parts of that are overly simplistic, but again, there's some truth there too.

Deists have a ready answer when asked "Whence the universe?" Trouble is, that answer is no more meaningful than "I don't know" and only two syllables shorter. And "I don't know" has the clear advantage of being less confusing, and more honest, I think.

Good topic, Ty.