Jayhawker Soule

I understand neither the reason nor the value of Deism. To posit a [supernatural] creator and then categorically deny past, present, or future intervention seems remarkably presumptuous, consigning naturalism to little more than religious doctrine. Furthermore, if the "First Cause" is truly perceived as a one-night-stand by a one-trick-god, what is this "Deity" other than a pseudonym of "that part that we do not yet understand"?

In discussions with Christian fundamentalists I have sometimes proudly noted the Deistic taint of the Founding Fathers. But is Deism truly a more noble and more reasoned alternative, or simply a less primitive myth?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Heathen Dawn

Deism was popular before Darwin publicized his theory. Remember what Richard Dawkins said about evolution enabling one to be a intellectually fulfilled atheist. Before the naturalistic Genesis account (evolution) came, Deism was the rational alternative to theism. With evolution, even the creator/starter-God is not needed anymore. Cf. Laplace: no need of that theory.

Jayhawker Soule

Actually no, I do not remember, but it's still a great point. I appreciate your intput!

Perchance

I don't think Deism is necessarily any less rational than any other theistic belief system; of course, this may not make it more rational, either. If someone feels the need to believe in a creator, but at the same time wishes to acknowledge the science of the natural world, it may be the best alternative.

That said, I haven't met very many Deists. Some theists who acknowledge science seem to compartamentalize religion in their minds into a separate compartment that science doesn't touch. I've known many Christians who did not object at all to evolution in biology class, so long as we were talking about animals; it was when the teacher started talking about the evolution of humanity and Darwin's skepticism about the existence of a God that they became uncomfortable.

-Perchance.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Jobar

Deism at least has the advantage of not being self-contradictory. Unproveable, yes; tail-biting, no. I am an agnostic to a Deist God, atheist when talking about Yahweh.

I see deism as accepting unabashedly that God hides in the very deepest of gaps.

Jamie_L

RD:

My interpretation is that early Deism was inspired by the same kind of naturalist leanings that today leads to atheism. The Deists looked around the world and concluded there was no supernatural interference going on.

However, these people did not have the benefit of any kind of scientific understanding of the beginnings of the universe. They may have clung to a "god of the gaps" to explain how everything started.

So, maybe they weren't bold enough to take the final step towards "there is no God", but they were rational enough to say "there's no God monkeying with the world, and all these dogmatic religions are B.S." That, I think, is much more rational than your run-of-the-mill religious theism.

Jamie

Jayhawker Soule

I see being an atheist with respect to YHWH as a bit like playing the philosopher's version of The Weakest Link. Liberal Christians would no doubt suggest that YHWH got bad press due to the poor primitives who wrote about him.

Is not being "an agnostic to a Deist God" equivalent to being an agnostic with respect to the supernatural and its relevance?

But, how would they know. The Orthodox Jew might tell us that Hashem created the world some 6kya replete with all of the characteristics of a much greater age. The liberal Christian would add that God works in mysterious ways. I can laugh at both, but once I posit the legitimacy of a supernatural agency of such multifaceted power, how do I then claim the temerity to constrain such an agent?

I realize that this is not an overly popular position, but I cannot shake the conviction that the options are God or no God, with everthing else resolving to tautology (I don't know what is unknowable.) or equivocation.

Jamie_L

I don't know if they made any such claims. I think they just observed "god doesn't interfere." They filled a gap (where did everything come from) with a god, and then postulated that this god must not be doing anything else because we don't observe him doing anything else. That seems a little more intellectually honest than trying to cling to an interactive god that hides from us.

Jamie

Jayhawker Soule

I suspect that, in some cases, a driving force was political, i.e., not so much the rejection of "an interactive god that hides from us" but, rather, the rejection of a God who's 'will' is revealed through a particular church.

Philip Osborne

To my knowledge, Deism claims that there is a divine creator but denies the truth of any claims of revelation. Deism may or may not include the belief that God no longer interferes with human affairs. It seems to me that deism is perfectly consistent with atheism, since the deistic deity seems to have no religious import; I've said before than atheism is perfectly consistent with the proposition that there is a powerful cosmic being which has no religious significance whatsoever.

-Philip