Mr Spinkles
Mr
Is deism superfluous? 
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's the Point of Deism?
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
But jewscout, one can be theist without any religious baggage either.
No, Pantheism is superfluous. Deism is unwarranted.Mr_Spinkles said:
Davidium
Active Member
I often try not to discuss with those who have already made up their minds.... but here we go....
But the great thing about our nation is that we each have the rights to make up our own minds...
Deism is a label, just as Theism, pantheism, christian, muslim, etc.... Labels are tools we use to find others who believe something like we do. Labels are a kind of shorthand.
Theism and Deism refer to related, but different concepts. The difference lies in degree, perception, and methodology.
Theism is a belief in a higher power, no matter how you came to that belief. A Theist can believe they had a trancendental experience and "felt God"... but such would not be consistant with Deism.
A Theist could believe in God because so many other people do, but such would not be consistant with Deism.
The Deist is one who comes to a belief in a Higher Power of some kind because, as he ponders the universe, it seems that such a Higher Power existing is the answer that makes the most sense... to him. What path the individual Deist takes to reach that decision is up to the particular Deist.
In answer to the questions on another thread about mine. One person asked why I felt that, supposing a Universal Purpose leads me to suppose a Higher power. Let me see if I can explain that a little clearer.
If such a purpose for the universe does exist, then something must have formulated that purpose... and be able to percieve it. Once again, my observation of the universe tells me that nothing exists without a purpose, without a place. As I said and someone misunderstood, I do not personally need black holes, but they serve a valid function in our universe.
If everything in the universe serves a purpose... then (to me) it only makes sense that the universe as a whole serves a purpose. To those who want me to provide direct evidence for this... you and I both know there is none. This is all deductive reasoning, something we humans excel at. Deductive Reasoning is an excellent tool for man, so long as you realize and apprecitate that there is an error factor in such reasoning.
Now, as I said, having deduced a purpose for the universe, that then leads me to some higher perspective who can judge/ perceive that purpose. This is my concept of God... That which knows the purpose of the universe. I do not speak to this God.... the practical side of my religious beliefs, that which I practice every day is actually mostly Humanist in nature. I once wrote that Humanism is the Morality and practice of Deism.
Not all Deists beleive as I do... that is the beauty of Deism. I can only honestly speak from where my pondering has taken me.
If I am still not clear, I will try again. If you have objections, then I will answer them the best I can. I also do not believe 100percent in my view of God... I would say I sit at around 80%. It would be contrary to my Deism to believe much of anything 100%
I thank you all for your attention...
Reason and Respect in all you say and do,
David Pyle
But the great thing about our nation is that we each have the rights to make up our own minds...
Deism is a label, just as Theism, pantheism, christian, muslim, etc.... Labels are tools we use to find others who believe something like we do. Labels are a kind of shorthand.
Theism and Deism refer to related, but different concepts. The difference lies in degree, perception, and methodology.
Theism is a belief in a higher power, no matter how you came to that belief. A Theist can believe they had a trancendental experience and "felt God"... but such would not be consistant with Deism.
A Theist could believe in God because so many other people do, but such would not be consistant with Deism.
The Deist is one who comes to a belief in a Higher Power of some kind because, as he ponders the universe, it seems that such a Higher Power existing is the answer that makes the most sense... to him. What path the individual Deist takes to reach that decision is up to the particular Deist.
In answer to the questions on another thread about mine. One person asked why I felt that, supposing a Universal Purpose leads me to suppose a Higher power. Let me see if I can explain that a little clearer.
If such a purpose for the universe does exist, then something must have formulated that purpose... and be able to percieve it. Once again, my observation of the universe tells me that nothing exists without a purpose, without a place. As I said and someone misunderstood, I do not personally need black holes, but they serve a valid function in our universe.
If everything in the universe serves a purpose... then (to me) it only makes sense that the universe as a whole serves a purpose. To those who want me to provide direct evidence for this... you and I both know there is none. This is all deductive reasoning, something we humans excel at. Deductive Reasoning is an excellent tool for man, so long as you realize and apprecitate that there is an error factor in such reasoning.
Now, as I said, having deduced a purpose for the universe, that then leads me to some higher perspective who can judge/ perceive that purpose. This is my concept of God... That which knows the purpose of the universe. I do not speak to this God.... the practical side of my religious beliefs, that which I practice every day is actually mostly Humanist in nature. I once wrote that Humanism is the Morality and practice of Deism.
Not all Deists beleive as I do... that is the beauty of Deism. I can only honestly speak from where my pondering has taken me.
If I am still not clear, I will try again. If you have objections, then I will answer them the best I can. I also do not believe 100percent in my view of God... I would say I sit at around 80%. It would be contrary to my Deism to believe much of anything 100%
I thank you all for your attention...
Reason and Respect in all you say and do,
David Pyle
So a Deist is a Theist whose teleology and belief in deity is based on reason?
Davidium
Active Member
Add to that the idea that as you use Reason to determine your religious beliefs, so too should you use reason as the primary tool in making all the decisions of your lives.Deut. 32.8 said:
Add to that that you always remember that all reasoning is partly deductive, and contains an error factor. As such, you should never be 100 percent certain of anything in life. For if you have no doubt, then you are no longer reasoning.
If you add those two things, then I would say you have a good working defination of Deism.
Reason and Respect,
David
So a Deist is a Theist whose teleology and belief in deity is, like all other decisions, based on reason and subject to error?
Davidium
Active Member
And maybe we could add to it that many Deists find the inspiration for their beliefs in the natural order of the universe.... But yeah, that is a pretty good defination.
As I have said before, we can set out the general concept of Deism, but making it dogma is problematic, as each Deist must be free to follow where his reason takes him, based upon his experiences and knowledge. The Tenets of the UDC are also pretty good as a defination, even if they are a bit more specific....
I freely believe in God as being discovered through nature and reason, rejecting revealed religion and its authority over humanity. I believe that all humans are equal. Further, as God has not shown favor for one people over another and has given us all that we need, that we should follow God's example and give to others as we can."
http://uniteddeistchurch.dynamicdeism.org/tenets.html
And The following one is from PONDER.....
http://www.deistnet.com/
Or from Deist.info
http://www.deist.info/deistprimer.htm
Or from Positive Deism...
I just thought you all might like to hear a few voices other than my own on this topic.... and from sites that I dont Administer!
Reason and Respect,
David Pyle
As I have said before, we can set out the general concept of Deism, but making it dogma is problematic, as each Deist must be free to follow where his reason takes him, based upon his experiences and knowledge. The Tenets of the UDC are also pretty good as a defination, even if they are a bit more specific....
Tenets of the United Deist Church
I freely believe in God as being discovered through nature and reason, rejecting revealed religion and its authority over humanity. I believe that all humans are equal. Further, as God has not shown favor for one people over another and has given us all that we need, that we should follow God's example and give to others as we can."
http://uniteddeistchurch.dynamicdeism.org/tenets.html
And The following one is from PONDER.....
http://www.deistnet.com/
Or from Deist.info
http://www.deist.info/deistprimer.htm
Or from Positive Deism...
http://www.positivedeism.com/deistdoc2.html
I just thought you all might like to hear a few voices other than my own on this topic.... and from sites that I dont Administer!
Reason and Respect,
David Pyle
Mr Spinkles
Mr
What reasoning would lead one to believe that the universe was created by a deity rather than natural laws?
Davidium
Active Member
I cannot speak for them... as that is not my belief. I believe that if the Deity designed anything, it was the natural laws themselves. I beleive they work too well together to have come about by chance. But I do not use this as my belief in God. Some Deists do not believe that God created the universe, but rather that God is the universe.
I have not gone that far yet... But I think that when most Deists say "God created the Universe" I think they often mean what I express as my (more likely than not) view, and that is not that the universe was designed, but rather that the natural laws were.
Reason and Respect,
David
I have not gone that far yet...
But I think that when most Deists say "God created the Universe" I think they often mean what I express as my (more likely than not) view, and that is not that the universe was designed, but rather that the natural laws were. Reason and Respect,
David
Thank you. It seems that central to the definition is the 'reason'. Unfortunately, this word suffers from a wide range of vernacular meanings. So, for example, you apparently exclude revelation as reason and, I would suspect, you likewise exclude intuition (or you have a clear criteria for distinguishing between revelation and intuition). In any even, before we go any further, could you offer your definition of "reason"?Davidium said:
Davidium
Active Member
I ask your indulgence on this question for a few days, as I am preparing a new essay just on this topic. I could answer in short form now, but I would rather put forth my entire view on this question all at once, and for that I will need a couple of days.
I am not dodging it, I promise. In fact, since I knew this question was coming, I began writing the essay last night. I had been intending a short treatsie on the subject of Reason for awhile, but had put it aside in favor of other projects.
We discussed this a bit in another thread... but I will go into full and exhausting detail in a few days... with your kind indulgence.
You are right, the word "Reason" has been used in many different vernacular methods... And I want to be specific here, as you are indeed right that understanding the Deist concept of Reason is central to understanding Deism. And the essay will not just be my opinion on the subject, but rather I hope to have the ponderings of some other Deist philosophers (like David Hume and Thomas Paine) for comparason.
But such an undertaking will involve a few days... so I give you a "rain check"...
Reason and Respect,
David
I am not dodging it, I promise. In fact, since I knew this question was coming, I began writing the essay last night. I had been intending a short treatsie on the subject of Reason for awhile, but had put it aside in favor of other projects.
We discussed this a bit in another thread... but I will go into full and exhausting detail in a few days... with your kind indulgence.
You are right, the word "Reason" has been used in many different vernacular methods... And I want to be specific here, as you are indeed right that understanding the Deist concept of Reason is central to understanding Deism. And the essay will not just be my opinion on the subject, but rather I hope to have the ponderings of some other Deist philosophers (like David Hume and Thomas Paine) for comparason.
But such an undertaking will involve a few days... so I give you a "rain check"...
Reason and Respect,
David
Of course. I look forward to the article.Davidium said:
A request, however. Please post the article in the section on Deism and then, if you would, provide the requested definition here. It would also be helpful if you would PM me when your article is ready. Thanks.
Faust
Active Member
(could you offer your definition of "reason"?) Quote from post by Deut.
Sorry Deut. I still can't figure out this quote mech.
I'm just going to but in here and give you my def. of reason. I hope it is welcome.
Reason is an a priori proposition, If such and such are true then we are lead to surmise that this is true. Reason is a function of intellect that is based on cumulative knowledge and experience.Cumulative knowledge and experience is subjective because what any two individuals encounter in their lives vary.Thus reason is the mechanism that allows the individual to draw on their store of knowledge and experience and surmise a correct answer or coarse of action based on said store of knowledge and experience. Therefore, any response will vary based on the sum of any individuals experience. Reason is only a function of concept,an abstract general notion. You can not force any abstract notion to conform to a strict interpretation, one size fits all, of reality .
The point of Deism in my opinion is that it fits with the interpretation of a group of individuals who's sum total of experience leads them to surmise that some intelligence is responsible for what appears to them to be a logical universe. I do not see things this way but I have not had the same life experience as they have. I understand, or presume to understand your point of view but I am willing to concede that I have not had the same experiences as they have and can not employ reason to the same ends as they do.
Sorry Deut. I still can't figure out this quote mech.
I'm just going to but in here and give you my def. of reason. I hope it is welcome.
Reason is an a priori proposition, If such and such are true then we are lead to surmise that this is true. Reason is a function of intellect that is based on cumulative knowledge and experience.Cumulative knowledge and experience is subjective because what any two individuals encounter in their lives vary.Thus reason is the mechanism that allows the individual to draw on their store of knowledge and experience and surmise a correct answer or coarse of action based on said store of knowledge and experience. Therefore, any response will vary based on the sum of any individuals experience. Reason is only a function of concept,an abstract general notion. You can not force any abstract notion to conform to a strict interpretation, one size fits all, of reality .
The point of Deism in my opinion is that it fits with the interpretation of a group of individuals who's sum total of experience leads them to surmise that some intelligence is responsible for what appears to them to be a logical universe. I do not see things this way but I have not had the same life experience as they have. I understand, or presume to understand your point of view but I am willing to concede that I have not had the same experiences as they have and can not employ reason to the same ends as they do.
In case I was insufficiently clear earlier, I tend to view epistemological relativism as the philosphical equivalent of pond scum - it sticks to everything but is essentially worthless as a transferrable selection criteria. How would you distinguish between reason and intuition?
Faust
Active Member
You use a lot of big words to say nothing don't you Deut.?
The difference between reason and intuition is reason is a mental process based on deduction, intuition is based on feeling.
Lets hear your definition of reason Deut. I bet it will be something on the order of, a deductive process based on facts. But let me propose that facts are relative to experience.
The facts that we possess today are not the facts that we possessed 1,000 years ago but that does not mean that people could not reason 1,000 years ago. It simply means that they reasoned based on the facts that they had available to them at that time. Therefore reasoning 1,000 years ago is relative to the facts that were available at that time.And reasoning today is based on the facts that are available to us at this time. I do not disagree with what you reason to be correct concerning religion because I have also undertaken the task of critically analyzing religion,(history,theory). But what I have accumulated as knowledge and what a religionist has accumulated are not the same and we will inevitably come to different conclusions. I do however choose a little less confrontational approach in as much as I debate rather than "attack" on a personal level,which as far as I am aware is not an acceptable method in the art of debate.
Now in order to keep this thread on topic, I believe what our Deist friend is saying is that the point of Deism is that although they "reason" that a superior being or first cause is necessary for the creation of the universe due to its complexity, but they maintain that this first cause does not interact with its creation. The point being the lack of interaction after the fact. They apparently do not see the need or evidence of personal interaction after the creation, and believe man has to assume personal responsibility for his actions. Your reference to pond scum is nothing more than opinion, and I guess to be fair I will respect your opinion, but only as opinion not by any means fact.
Faust
The difference between reason and intuition is reason is a mental process based on deduction, intuition is based on feeling.
Lets hear your definition of reason Deut. I bet it will be something on the order of, a deductive process based on facts. But let me propose that facts are relative to experience.
The facts that we possess today are not the facts that we possessed 1,000 years ago but that does not mean that people could not reason 1,000 years ago. It simply means that they reasoned based on the facts that they had available to them at that time. Therefore reasoning 1,000 years ago is relative to the facts that were available at that time.And reasoning today is based on the facts that are available to us at this time. I do not disagree with what you reason to be correct concerning religion because I have also undertaken the task of critically analyzing religion,(history,theory). But what I have accumulated as knowledge and what a religionist has accumulated are not the same and we will inevitably come to different conclusions. I do however choose a little less confrontational approach in as much as I debate rather than "attack" on a personal level,which as far as I am aware is not an acceptable method in the art of debate.
Now in order to keep this thread on topic, I believe what our Deist friend is saying is that the point of Deism is that although they "reason" that a superior being or first cause is necessary for the creation of the universe due to its complexity, but they maintain that this first cause does not interact with its creation. The point being the lack of interaction after the fact. They apparently do not see the need or evidence of personal interaction after the creation, and believe man has to assume personal responsibility for his actions. Your reference to pond scum is nothing more than opinion, and I guess to be fair I will respect your opinion, but only as opinion not by any means fact.
Faust
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Faust-- There appears to be much more than the proposal of a First Cause at work here. From my understanding, Deists also propose purpose in the universe endowed by an intelligent entity acting as that First Cause.