Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
????"....poltergeists and all of the other evidence...." That's as far as I got.
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:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
????"....poltergeists and all of the other evidence...." That's as far as I got.
Here's a pretty good link:
The core belief is that, if there is a God, It is a free-will providing, hands off laissez-faire God. Any beliefs beyond that ... however reasonable, are still individual, irrelevant speculation...
...deism offers hope for a Hereafter for those who live a moral, virtuous life, or oblivion for those who don't
I know this thread is a bit old and has moved on, but I want to ask my old friend (from other forums) TPT about this line of reasoning...
So are we to infer that this "hope" is also "individual, irrelevant speculation"?
Of what value then except to the individual "hoper"?
And how is the judgement between the moral and virtuous who are deserving of such a reward and the immoral and non-virtuous who deserve oblivion made by a strictly "hands-off laissez faire God"?
So is this "judgement" based on some absolute standard of moral behaviour or our own individual interpretation?
It is interesting to me because, following the trajectory of deistic thinking in the 17th-18th century, this idea seems to me to hark back to a more primitive version such as Lord Herbert's, who included divine rewards and punishments in his "Five Articles". However, by the time of Shaftesbury's Characteristicks in the early 1700s, the emphasis was shifting from divine arbitration to human reason as the basis for determining what was or was not morally acceptable. By the end of that century, a number of deists (Collins and Bolingbroke for example) had cast doubt on or rejected the idea of an afterlife altogether and even for those (like Paine) who still (albeit rather vaguely) admitted the possibility, the prospect was more or less de-linked from morality much as Shaftesbury had de-linked morality from theology earlier.
Your comments seem to suggest, on the one hand, that morality ("good and evil") arises out of human reason ("born of choices"..."self-awareness") but, on the other hand, somehow seems to exist (primordially, independent of human reason) as an ideal ("in the light of Truth") to be discovered by reason. So which is it? Or am I misreading one part or the other?
But surely, circumstances change - and whilst taking someone else's life, liberty or property away from them is undoubtedly wrong in principle, surely there must be circumstances in which such actions are morally justified - where, precisely, does my right to liberty - or even my property - begin and end? At what point does my right to self-defense kick in?
Has God pre-determined these limits for all possible circumstances? For example, how high above the ground does my property extend? How far beneath? How loud does my neighbour have to play his music before it infringes on my right to enjoy my property? Are there really absolute standards about these things that are merely accessible to "right thinking" or are they really matters of convention - collectively subjective (i.e. expressing how most of us currently feel about it), relative and subject to change?
Anyway, I have sidetracked significantly - my question was more about judgement than morality per se and as I said, how could anyone, with the benefit of perfect hindsight and full knowledge of Truth, be able to judge themselves worthy of an eternally happy afterlife? No wonder good ol' Tom Paine expressed it as a mere "hope" and in such vague terms.
But the only evidence available is the perfect lack of evidence concerning the origin of the universe, or what came "before". I understand atheism, and as I've said, it's as reasonable as deism. So given that, atheism is 100% individual preference. My question is why reject hope--fear of disappointment and betrayal as happens with revealed religions? Better to resign yourself to the pessimistic possibility rather than be jilted again?
That response is far too glib. Why not check it out, whether God is there or not, then, if you're still tired, bored or whatever, just opt for oblivion. Would you dismiss trading in your car for a new flying yacht for free without even testing it in a similar cavalier fashion? Or are you worried about "qualifying" given all those residual revealed religious qualifications you were brought up to believe in? Or....were you originally brought up (read indoctrinated) as an atheist?
Yet you label yourself a deist????
Oh! I see - so this "absolute" standard cannot actually be applied then. So practically we're stuck with muddling through as best we can on questions of morality and almost all of it is - as I think I may have suggested - a matter of evolving convention.
BTW - I am of European origin too. It was only relevant because you - and I - are not still occupying the property of our ancestors but the property of some other tribe that has now been dispossessed. So much for the "unalienable rights" of all men.
Obviously, this wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I could perhaps add something by answering, as an atheist.
Unlike some atheists, I don't have any issues with deism. But for me, it doesn't represent 'hope', just as atheism doesn't represent a 'pessimistic possibility'. It's an attempt for self-honesty is all. I find it quite comforting, although you could make the argument that this is me finding the good in an existing belief/non-belief, rather than anything inherent in atheism.
Ultimately, my position is that there is a lot I don't know. A non-interventionist God could be part of that. Who knows? A whole pantheon of those could exist. But if they do, what do I know about them? About the afterlife? About their wants for humanity, or whether they have an interest in us? Nothing
What impact, then, would they have on me here on Earth? On my behaviours? None..
I try to live with a longer term view. To leave the world in a better state than I found it. It's not my atheism that determines that, since it could as easily support an extreme hedonism, but that's my life philosophy, for many reasons.
Obviously much of this was targetted at @RRex and his responses, so I know it doesn't directly relate to me. But suffice to say, I was raised in a Christian family (if not devout) and I do try to keep an open mind when considering religion and spirituality. But it's unlikely that any would convince me, since the means for me being convinced is kinda a high bar, I suspect.
Perhaps a personal revelation would do it, but that's pretty unlikely from a Deistic position.
Perhaps you "see" but I'm afraid I don't. Morality is absolute, at least for adults, and is there for all adults to either listen to or ignore. "Listen to what?" you may ask. To the inherent knowledge we have of what the person will feel by what you do to them, knowledge enabled by our full self awareness by which we put ourselves in their shoes. BTW, sarcasm is nothing but a method for rationalizing our lack of dedication to the Truth, and an irritating deflection for others.
We are unable to identify who originally occupied any piece of land. By your reasoning, the first human occupied, or more precisely, could have claimed to have occupied, the whole world. Liberals, on the one hand, claim that no one owns the land, while at the same time, reason that the first occupiers, whoever they were, owned an indeterminate amount of land which they occupied a portion of.
OK - without sarcasm (which is actually a form of ridicule or irony - which has enjoyed enormous prestige in Deist literature - have you read Paine? Or what Shaftesbury said on that subject - he defended its use in philosophical debate thus: "Truth, ’tis suppos’d, may bear all Lights: and one of those principal Lights or natural Mediums, by which Things are to be view’d, in order to a thorow Recognition, is Ridicule it-self")...
Anyway, sarcasm apart, I can't see how you can reconcile "Morality is absolute" with "[listening to the] inherent knowledge...of what the person will feel" (isn't that the same as saying "listen to one's own conscience?) - and how can that not be subjective?
And if, as you correctly state, we are (far more often than not) "unable to identify who originally occupied any piece of land" - how can our "unalienable" moral "right" to our property be anything other than a matter of (current) moral convention - and subject to change?
More to the point - why would a Deist God even care? So how could it be any basis for judgement with respect to our worthiness to inherit an afterlife? It seems to me we are accepting this afterlife as "deism" only because earlier Deists had not yet got around to refuting (or ridiculing) the idea. But it seems to me that the idea of God (directly or indirectly) judging us based on some supposed absolute standard of morality that not one of us could possibly fathom is profoundly un-deistic. There is nothing we can observe in nature and no logical reason to assume that this 'afterlife' is even a possibility. Everything we know about death tells us that that's the end of life - period!
Yes - you're right of course - the first human did indeed occupy the whole world - and she bequeathed it in it's entirety to the whole of her progeny - hence, no ONE 'owns' any land and yet collectively by birthright we all own all the land - so the "liberals" seem to have got it right. In any case, a more certain prospect for most of us, I think, is that we will finally occupy as much property as it takes to bury us - and that only till the worms are done with us.
Hi............................ The core belief is that, if there is a God, It is a free-will providing, hands off laissez-faire God. Any beliefs beyond that such as pandeism, panendeism, however reasonable, are still individual, irrelevant speculation.
The above is absolutely unfounded....................deism offers hope for a Hereafter for those who live a moral, virtuous life, or oblivion for those who don't;.
Thanks TPT - you make some excellent points - pity they were not related to what I posted - I mean, I don't recall "saying" as you suggest I did, anything at all about Nazi's, gold watches, murderous grandparents - or even justice and restitution for that matter (though these are admittedly related concepts).
You were applying presumed inherited guilt. My examples just made your argument more transparent.
I do not mean to be rude, but your whole OP is just a jumbled mess of nonsense.
Your religion title is just a contradiction of terms.
Not to be rude either (though I don't believe you succeeded there), but it's blatantly obvious that contradiction was the intent. There is no reasonable room for Hell in deism.
I accept that there is no depth to me or my reasoning, but I can assure you that the core belief is that 'all is God'..... no ifs about it.
That's the core belief of pandeism, a speculative subdivision of deism, which is the prime speculative agnostic possibility that if God exists, It does not and will not interact in this natural universe It created.
Whilst there is a degree of speculation present, the belief can remain intact.
While pandeism may well be the correct version of deism, it's irrelevant for us whether God is all and doesn't interact, or is not all and doesn't interact. Deism says that God, if It exists, does not interact, That's all that's important for us to know about God. BTW, I think God is all is better expressed as God is Truth, Truth being everything that exists including imagination.
As a Deist I do not need to seek a hereafter.
I don't seek it either, I merely hope, and pursue the Truth.
I was dead for countless billions of ages before I came to be as I am now, and I will be quite prepared top be dead for countless billions of ages hereafter. My morals and virtue, such as they are, have nothing to do with my beliefs.
What is the source or foundation for your morality?
Any sparrow in my garden can have as much expectation as I.
None of those sparrows, or any animals for that matter, possess full awareness of self, including our mortality, and thus have no moral free will. If such creatures do exist, here or elsewhere in the universe, we would be equivalent sentient beings with them. AI may well be fully self-aware some day. Beings without full self-awareness are innocent because they choose to do right or wrong--wrong being the intentional violation of the rights of other self-aware creatures to their life, liberty, property or self-defense.
Oh, you're soooo reasonable!There is no reasonable room for Hell in deism.
What is Truth?I don't seek it either, I merely hope, and pursue the Truth.
NatureWhat is the source or foundation for your morality?
Wrong.None of those sparrows, or any animals for that matter, possess full awareness of self, including our mortality, and thus have no moral free will.
Where did I say anything about "inherited guilt"? I was making the point that the "unalienable right" to enjoy one's property that you propose as an absolute moral standard cannot genuinely be so. Your responses were more about legality and (avoidance of) guilt. I have made two clear points:ThePainefulTruth said:You were applying presumed inherited guilt. My examples just made your argument more transparent.
You would need to edit your post if you ever want any to see it.
I will copy some of it here:-
Oh, you're soooo reasonable!
Just you tell that to the millions of starving, cold, bullied, tortured folks in this world.
What is Truth?
I'll tell that to the kingfisher, when next I see it.
...... and the sparrowhawk.
....I'll even tell the next rock that I see....
you see, to be more lost in your intellect than any curlew on the foreshore, for sure.