Deism, God's actions, and relationships with this divinity

[Breathe]

Okay, so I usually read about Deism having a God who does not intervene in the world, and I just had a quick read through Wikipedia's articles on Deism, and the bits in "Spiritual Deism" and "Panendeism" made me decide to ask a question, since I don't know enough about Deism as I would like to.

What is usually meant by "intervenes", and how does it relate to Franklin's claims that God governs in the affairs of men, and so on? Was Franklin a lone figure, or was God more personal in the early days of Deism, and then became impersonal, and now transpersonal?

Do you think it would be possible to have, for lack of a better term, a "relationship" with this divinity? Not as in a personal relationship like with a friend, but to experience Godliness and/or Divine will through, say, meditation and communion through, say, prayer and/or reflection through nature?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Okay, so I usually read about Deism having a God who does not intervene in the world, and I just had a quick read through Wikipedia's articles on Deism, and the bits in "Spiritual Deism" and "Panendeism" made me decide to ask a question, since I don't know enough about Deism as I would like to.

What is usually meant by "intervenes", and how does it relate to Franklin's claims that God governs in the affairs of men, and so on? Was Franklin a lone figure, or was God more personal in the early days of Deism, and then became impersonal, and now transpersonal?

I doubt that Franklin quote, though he and most of the recognizable founders figured one one life risking cause at a time was enough, and kept their personal thoughts on religion to themselves or to others of like mind--giving lip service at times to Christianity in support of the political cause. Franklin in his autobiography said the arguments made by theists against deism had the opposite of their intended effect and caused him to "soon become a thorough Deist".

Many early deists allowed as how there is "divine providence" (even Paine), but it should be included with all intervention such as revelation or any other supernatural action. The reason for no intervention must be to protect the free will It gifted to us through the creation of the natural universe. I call non-intervention God's Prime Directive for Itself.

Do you think it would be possible to have, for lack of a better term, a "relationship" with this divinity? Not as in a personal relationship like with a friend, but to experience Godliness and/or Divine will through, say, meditation and communion through, say, prayer and/or reflection through nature?

No. The point is to use our heads, our ability to reason, and then using that reason, make our life choices. Again, the Cosmos was apparently created (if it was created) for the sole purpose of spawning self-aware creatures with (moral) free will.

 

[oldbadger]

Okay, so I usually read about Deism having a God who does not intervene in the world, and I just had a quick read through Wikipedia's articles on Deism, and the bits in "Spiritual Deism" and "Panendeism" made me decide to ask a question, since I don't know enough about Deism as I would like to.

What is usually meant by "intervenes", and how does it relate to Franklin's claims that God governs in the affairs of men, and so on? Was Franklin a lone figure, or was God more personal in the early days of Deism, and then became impersonal, and now transpersonal?

Do you think it would be possible to have, for lack of a better term, a "relationship" with this divinity? Not as in a personal relationship like with a friend, but to experience Godliness and/or Divine will through, say, meditation and communion through, say, prayer and/or reflection through nature?

I think it is more simple......
Every breath, scene, challenge etc to be appreciated.

Live it. Love it. It's your life, given to you for nothing. Wow! Enough......

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think it is more simple......
Every breath, scene, challenge etc to be appreciated.

Live it. Love it. It's your life, given to you for nothing. Wow! Enough......

Yes, appreciation of what we have is one way to worship (for lack of a better word) God, if It exists. But I think we benefit from such appreciation with the inner peace it gives us. And appreciation of the righteous beauty of things is one of the aspects of Truth we can use in its pursuit/worship. Other aspects of Truth besides beauty are knowledge, justice and love.

 

[Neo Deist]

Deism can't be specifically defined because it is a very broad term. Deists have different beliefs, just like Christian denominations do. However, we do agree on one thing: there is a God. Beyond that, you get into personal beliefs.

I am of the belief that if God wants to do something, He can. Who are we to limit His power? Who are we to try and understand His reasons? He may interact with us and He may not. He is beyond our understanding.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Deism can't be specifically defined because it is a very broad term. Deists have different beliefs, just like Christian denominations do. However, we do agree on one thing: there is a God. Beyond that, you get into personal beliefs.

I am of the belief that if God wants to do something, He can. Who are we to limit His power? Who are we to try and understand His reasons? He may interact with us and He may not. He is beyond our understanding.

DEISM
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

There's no basis in reason, the only nearly universal characteristic of deistic belief, for stating there is a God. The only reasonable positions on the existence of God is deism and atheism.

And it isn't that we limit God, God limits God. And if as is generally assumed, that It has the power to create (or destroy) the universe, then It would have to be as a minimum self-aware and have motivations. If not, there'd essentially be no God. Assuming God's existence then, we can propose reasonable speculation for God's motivation in creating the universe run by natural law.

Until now, it's been assumed that God created the universe (clock) wound it up an walked away. That makes no sense. A (the) reason God would create the universe is to spawn self-aware creatures with the free will that provides. Anything else an omnipotent God could do instantly, instead of incorporating a 13 billion year fire wall between It and us. To claim that God is completely beyond our understanding is a remnant of revealed religious demagoguery, unable to reason ably explain why their "revealed" gods don't make sense.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Deism can't be specifically defined because it is a very broad term. Deists have different beliefs, just like Christian denominations do. However, we do agree on one thing: there is a God. Beyond that, you get into personal beliefs.

I am of the belief that if God wants to do something, He can. Who are we to limit His power? Who are we to try and understand His reasons? He may interact with us and He may not. He is beyond our understanding.

Yes, it's become a very broad term due to those (they know who they are) who broaden it in order to make it all encompassing and diverse. I have a whole list of hyphenated deisms, eve Christian-deism--a complete oxymoron. Most deists claim deism is driven by reason, which is saying very little. Most revealed religions claim to possess the Truth. The one tenet of deism that fits with its denial of divine revelation, is a complete laissez-faire God. Many early deists believed in divine providence, but that doesn't work either.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, it's become a very broad term due to those (they know who they are) who broaden it in order to make it all encompassing and diverse. I have a whole list of hyphenated deisms, eve Christian-deism--a complete oxymoron. Most deists claim deism is driven by reason, which is saying very little. Most revealed religions claim to possess the Truth. The one tenet of deism that fits with its denial of divine revelation, is a complete laissez-faire God. Many early deists believed in divine providence, but that doesn't work either.

Every religion does that. Christians have denominations. Judaism has a host of subcategories. It is human nature to find a "label" to identify with.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Okay, so I usually read about Deism having a God who does not intervene in the world, and I just had a quick read through Wikipedia's articles on Deism, and the bits in "Spiritual Deism" and "Panendeism" made me decide to ask a question, since I don't know enough about Deism as I would like to.

What is usually meant by "intervenes", and how does it relate to Franklin's claims that God governs in the affairs of men, and so on? Was Franklin a lone figure, or was God more personal in the early days of Deism, and then became impersonal, and now transpersonal?

Do you think it would be possible to have, for lack of a better term, a "relationship" with this divinity? Not as in a personal relationship like with a friend, but to experience Godliness and/or Divine will through, say, meditation and communion through, say, prayer and/or reflection through nature?

I generally do not pray, because I believe that God is a distant deity. I would imagine that it does more watching/listening anyway. Even if it were to speak to someone, (assuming that it even has the ability to do such,) I'm sure its message would eventually be distorted over time. Just as the message of Jesus of Nazareth is to this day.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Every religion does that. Christians have denominations. Judaism has a host of subcategories. It is human nature to find a "label" to identify with.

But if you deny or obfuscate a particular philosophy's core tenet, you undermine the use of the word for that philosophy in rational communication--which is, unfortunately, the goal of many, to discredit deism (in this case), and/or just to be nihilistic/anarchistic.

I generally do not pray, because I believe that God is a distant deity. I would imagine that it does more watching/listening anyway. Even if it were to speak to someone, (assuming that it even has the ability to do such,) I'm sure its message would eventually be distorted over time. Just as the message of Jesus of Nazareth is to this day.

God, if It exists, has set things up so there is no evidence available for or against It's existence. I think the obvious reason for that is so that we're here on a natural/rational stage so the God and we can see us exercise our character. If God won't intervene, relying on prayer is just a crutch, though I wouldn't argue with those who derive spiritual sustenance from prayer-like meditation.

And indeed, any divine message delivered piecemeal will be distorted being subject to innocent error or evil intent. Thomas Paine addressed the issue in this very profound passage:

“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language.... It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”--The Age of Reason, pt. 1

 

[Neo Deist]

But if you deny or obfuscate a particular philosophy's core tenet, you undermine the use of the word for that philosophy in rational communication--which is, unfortunately, the goal of many, to discredit deism (in this case), and/or just to be nihilistic/anarchistic.

I am not so rigid as that. I tend to be more fluid as things change with time. That is why the deism you refer to is now called classical deism.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am not so rigid as that. I tend to be more fluid as things change with time. That is why the deism you refer to is now called classical deism.

If a defining idea behind a word changes, you don't change the definition for the word, you use or invent another word. All of the new hyphenated modern deisms are merely attempts to undermine the original idea, or to glom onto the rising popularity of the idea but inadvertently or intentionally dilute it in the process. Any philosophy can claim to be based on reason, the object is to show what reason, instead of "God", reveals--in this case that there is nothing but hearsay evidence for miracles, the supernatural or divine revelation. If a revealed religion can show evidence to back up it's revelations (beyond the history it happens to have recorded), then deism is defunct. So far the score is 10 to the trillionth power to zero against revelation.

 

[Neo Deist]

Deism, the simple belief in God, will never be defunct. Every "ism" starts with deism, then grows from there. Alas, no religion can back up their claims outside of holy book "X," so we agree there.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Deism, the simple belief in God, will never be defunct. Every "ism" starts with deism, then grows from there. Alas, no religion can back up their claims outside of holy book "X," so we agree there.

Yes, and that's the point. Deism is approaching a simple concept in God with reason, but today, reason overwhelms any alternative to a non-interventionist God. Your rejection of the "classic deism" label in the pursuit of diversity, pushes you off into the purgatory of a theological no-man's land that satisfies nobody.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, and that's the point. Deism is approaching a simple concept in God with reason, but today, reason overwhelms any alternative to a non-interventionist God. Your rejection of the "classic deism" label in the pursuit of diversity, pushes you off into the purgatory of a theological no-man's land that satisfies nobody.

Way to bring up a 6 month old post!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Way to bring up a 6 month old post!

What, Truth has a time limit?

 

[Neo Deist]

What, Truth has a time limit?

In politics and law, yes.