-
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!
Deism discussion
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
True. Most deists would say that of what are called, "Holy Books" do contain truth and understanding about life and how one should live in harmony with the world around them and it is important to read and understand these books for that reason, but reject the idea that these books come from "God" or that only one contains the only truth.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I am starting this thread to give us an opportunity to examine Deism - the belief in God that is not based on revealed faith, but rather on rational thought. We have a member (DrM) that is a Deist, and hopefully he can share his thoughts on this.
I sincerely look forward to these discussions.
Thanks
TVOR
I sincerely look forward to these discussions.
Thanks
TVOR
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Don't freak out, TVOR I just combined an old thread with the one you just started. 
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Thanks Maize - that "popping" sound you just heard would be me pulling my head out of my butt.
Thanks,
TVOR
Thanks,
TVOR
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
No problem, I've been hoping for a good discussion on Deism for a while.
Davidium
Active Member
Way cool!
I am happy to jump into this conversation.... I just posted a longer post on Deism. Now, I am more of a "Modern Deist" than a "classical Deist"....
Deism, being a Religion/Philosophy that is based not upon Dogma but upon human reason, is by necessity different for each and every individual. In order to be based upon an individuals reason, that individual must be free to go where Reason takes him...
Now, instead of re=writing a long post on Deism... I think I would rather post a service I gave on Deism earlier this year.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3945
or, on my site
http://dynamicdeism.org/library/deismpastpresentandfuture.htm
Deism is, at its core, a belief arrived at through Reason that a Higher Perspective does exist. Some come to this conclusion through Intelligent Design, some through Universal Purpose. There are those that beleive that God is the Universe, and we are a part of Him. As we use Reason to come to our belief in God, then so we should also use Reason in deciding upon all the beliefs in our lives....
I think the Tenets of the United Deist Church say it best...
I am happy to jump into this conversation.... I just posted a longer post on Deism. Now, I am more of a "Modern Deist" than a "classical Deist"....
Deism, being a Religion/Philosophy that is based not upon Dogma but upon human reason, is by necessity different for each and every individual. In order to be based upon an individuals reason, that individual must be free to go where Reason takes him...
Now, instead of re=writing a long post on Deism... I think I would rather post a service I gave on Deism earlier this year.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3945
or, on my site
http://dynamicdeism.org/library/deismpastpresentandfuture.htm
Deism is, at its core, a belief arrived at through Reason that a Higher Perspective does exist. Some come to this conclusion through Intelligent Design, some through Universal Purpose. There are those that beleive that God is the Universe, and we are a part of Him. As we use Reason to come to our belief in God, then so we should also use Reason in deciding upon all the beliefs in our lives....
I think the Tenets of the United Deist Church say it best...
Reason and Respect in all you say and do,
David Pyle
Why would something that is based on "human reason" [sic!] be "by necessity different for each and every individual"?Davidium said:
Faust
Active Member
When I refer to myself as atheist, I do so because I do not believe in a God or gods. Anthropomorphic or not. However because I believe that all things are interconnected I also fit in the category of UU and Deist ect...
I'm not very concerned about titles, but I also have a bit of the ol Tao in me, but that is technically a philosophy.
I am however very interested in getting at the meat of things and have studied the Abrahamic religions on my own for some time now. I believe there are very many titles to express this attitude, but in the end, we who search out our own answers rather than accepting someone-elses, are all roughly of the same timbre.
I'm not very concerned about titles, but I also have a bit of the ol Tao in me, but that is technically a philosophy.
I am however very interested in getting at the meat of things and have studied the Abrahamic religions on my own for some time now. I believe there are very many titles to express this attitude, but in the end, we who search out our own answers rather than accepting someone-elses, are all roughly of the same timbre.
Faust said:
I trust you have a lot of spare change.
Faust
Active Member
LOL!
Yes I agree with you Deut. but I am not applying all these terms to myself. I believe it goes back to Davidium's subjective view of reason. It seems to me that where I fall on the belief spectrum is measured differently by individuals based on their personal experience.
But what matters to me is my interpretation of existence.
Yes I agree with you Deut. but I am not applying all these terms to myself. I believe it goes back to Davidium's subjective view of reason. It seems to me that where I fall on the belief spectrum is measured differently by individuals based on their personal experience.
But what matters to me is my interpretation of existence.
Faust
Active Member
When I refer to myself as atheist, I do so because I do not believe in a God or gods. Anthropomorphic or not. However because I believe that all things are interconnected I also fit in the category of UU and Deist ect...
You see, it sounds a little different when you include the entire text of the quote rather than editing it.:tsk: When you edit out part of any text you can change the entire meaning of the message, as I am sure anyone on a religious forum is aware! lol!
You see, it sounds a little different when you include the entire text of the quote rather than editing it.:tsk: When you edit out part of any text you can change the entire meaning of the message, as I am sure anyone on a religious forum is aware! lol!
Leaving aside oxymoronic constructs like subjective reason (which you correctly assign to Davidium's world view), what matters to me is your "interpretation of existence" as well: you either view it as teleological or not. Can you suggest a meaningful distinction between 'deism' and 'theism'?
No, I honestly do not see.Faust said:
Faust
Active Member
Leaving aside oxymoronic constructs like subjective reason (which you correctly assign to Davidium's world view), what matters to me is your "interpretation of existence" as well: you either view it as teleological or not. Can you suggest a meaningful distinction between 'deism' and 'theism'?
Sorry Deut., I've obviously struck the wrong cord with you tonight. I'm sorry if I've been unable to make myself clear. Let me try again without offending if I can.
If I am exposed to a flame and I posses sight I know that it provides light. If however I am sightless I can not make this logical conclusion. If I am lead to stick my finger into the flame, I find out that it can cause severe pain, however if I do not stick my finger into the flame I may perceive that it produces heat but am unaware of it's potential to burn me.
That is subjective reasoning, based on perception and reasoning. I do not find it oxymoronic.
As far as my interpretation of existence goes, there is no god or gods. We are the result of what some would call chaos theory.
I was simply trying to make the point that "others" place me in categories based on their personal perceptions and experiences.
And yes, I too have a problem separating deism from theism, thats why I decided to engage in this thread. I thought I might learn a little more about deism myself.
Sorry Deut., I've obviously struck the wrong cord with you tonight. I'm sorry if I've been unable to make myself clear. Let me try again without offending if I can.
If I am exposed to a flame and I posses sight I know that it provides light. If however I am sightless I can not make this logical conclusion. If I am lead to stick my finger into the flame, I find out that it can cause severe pain, however if I do not stick my finger into the flame I may perceive that it produces heat but am unaware of it's potential to burn me.
That is subjective reasoning, based on perception and reasoning. I do not find it oxymoronic.
As far as my interpretation of existence goes, there is no god or gods. We are the result of what some would call chaos theory.
I was simply trying to make the point that "others" place me in categories based on their personal perceptions and experiences.
And yes, I too have a problem separating deism from theism, thats why I decided to engage in this thread. I thought I might learn a little more about deism myself.
Faust, it would help a bit if you would use the quoting mechanism provided.
You are mistaken. I do not feel at all offended, and I am not at all clear why you might think such a thing - much less why you would think it "obvious".Faust said:
Reasoning based on reasoning is probably a good thing. Subjective reasoning is, in my opinion, an oxymoron.Faust said:
Faust
Active Member
Well I do agree with you that it would help to use the quoting thingy but I'm new to computers and have been unable to figure that out yet.
However, reasoning is influenced by experience. Experience differs from person to person.
Therefore it is "primarily" subjective. Objective reasoning would be reasoning that is not influenced by personal experience. No matter how hard we try, even in a laboratory setting, we can not be totally objective. Thats why blind and double blind tests are used to gather information. We have to do the best we can to disengage our personal prejudices from the investigative process.
However, reasoning is influenced by experience. Experience differs from person to person.
Therefore it is "primarily" subjective. Objective reasoning would be reasoning that is not influenced by personal experience. No matter how hard we try, even in a laboratory setting, we can not be totally objective. Thats why blind and double blind tests are used to gather information. We have to do the best we can to disengage our personal prejudices from the investigative process.
How do you "fit the category of Deist"?
Davidium
Active Member
Because no two humans operating the tool of Reason have the exact same set of knowledge and experiences for that Reason to operate upon. No one human being can have a perfect understanding of even the smallest aspect of our universe.... and we each experience different things in our lives. As such, the conclusions reached by our use of the tool of Reason will be different. We have different starting points.
As each of us has a different set of knowledge and experiences to draw upon, then the products of our Reason will be different.
Using a hammer, nails, some wood.... You might make a shelf and I might make a birdhouse... as each of us is called to by our experience and knowledge. But both of us are building.
To expect others to use the tool of Reason exactly as you to come to the same conclusions as you would require them to have identical knowledge and life experiences to you. I doubt that you have ever met anyone who fit this bill...
Reason and Respect,
David Pyle