Howard

In most places in the US the word “atheist” is a pejorative. It has an extremely negative connotation and is automatically associated by the majority of Americans with immorality and irresponsibility. To some it is equivalent to child molester. (Agnostic is slightly more positive but not much. Besides, it requires far too much explanatory energy.) That this notion of atheism is neither true nor fair doesn’t matter. What does matter is that it's the popular perception - and perception always trumps reality.

Consequently, any world view that completely eliminates God is just not going to sell to most Americans. What does seem to work, at least in my personal experience, is, for lack of a better term, “metaphysical deism.” That is, one simply accepts, a priori, a “first cause” deity. This not only undercuts the infuriating “Where did all this come from?” argument, but you don’t have to spend your time and energy discussing mind-numbing concepts such as causeless causes and quantum singularities.

After buying into this first cause deity, which is really not materially different than the quantum singularity, you can immediately dispense with it. Everything else about metaphysical naturalism remains the same – the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution. You simply say God created the universe in such a way that intelligent life would evolve.

He doesn’t get involved in human affairs, he doesn’t send people to heaven or hell and he doesn’t have a Grand Plan for each one of us. He just wound up the universe, set it spinning then took a permanent leave of absence.

Is such an idea intellectually dishonest for a hard-line atheist? To some extent it is, but I can tell you from first-hand experience it is damned effective. You completely avoid the interminable arguments about God’s existence by defining him in such a way that he may as well not exist. But by putting God behind it all people are much more accepting of the science. As long as God is in the equations, even if he’s a null term, most people are inclined to buy into them.

(Not sure where this goes. Mods can move if inappropriate here.)

Megatron

You're hitting at a truth there, Howard... but it still disappoints and disgusts me that so many people feel so strong a need for a divine being to be involved somewhere in the equation...

Why is it so damned hard for people to understand that, to put it simply, "what you see is what you get"?

Besides... if there were a Deist god, it wouldn't be particularly concerned about how many of us acknowledge his existence.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zero Angel ]</p>

Zar

I could live with deists quite well, I think, although I'm not sure if, historically, deists have always been very kind to atheists.

So, I'm not sure if this solves anything, but it would doubtless be a great improvement.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zar ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Yes.

Sure, for arguing for deism. Not much of a victory. [shrug]

Howard

Sorry but you completely missed the point. (Insert gratuitous, insulting shrug here.)

Deism is the syrup that makes the bitter pills of science easier to swallow for a lot of people. Personally I’d prefer the teaching of evolution with a (tacit) deistic God behind it, than the teaching of Creationism and the associated Bible God. Around here, those are the only acceptable choices.

BLoggins02

Why not just avoid the subject? I live in an area that is easily 90% fundamentalist Christian. If someone asks me directly, I talk about it (and try to get them to understand that I'm not a baby eating child molester like their friends and preachers would have them believe). Otherwise, I just let it go. This is far more honest than positing Deism even though you don't believe a word of it just so people won't look at you with disgust.

The only time I'm really tempted and have to bite my tongue is when I overhear people saying things like "...and it's those damn Atheists! Like when they tried to cram evilution down our throats and take Christian broadcasting off the airwaves!"

I've finally come to the conclusion that if people want to be stupid, let them. If they were really interested in objective reality, they could just go to the damn library. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Eudaimonist

Scientific conclusions might be made easier to accept, but steeped in irrational mysticism. This is promoting the form of science without the substance. IOW, it is treating the symptoms, but not the illness. This won't be any victory in the long run.

But let's say I'm wrong. Let's say that you've found a way to create (semi-)scientific Christians. How many firm deists have you created? What were they originally? Were they liberal Christians, or fundamentalists?

Malaclypse the Younger

&lt;shrugs&gt; I'm a metaphysical deist on alternate Thursdays.