DarkSun
:eltiT
I also see the main difference being that deism encourages belief through reason, while theism encourages blind faith. But where I think I disagree with Tumbleweed is that 'reason' is only valid if it's supported through the scientific method. Deductive reasoning through science and logic is only one way through which we can reason. I would argue that sometimes, inductive reasoning and intuition can be equally valid. Not always. Just sometimes.
Personally, when I look at the world I can't fathom how it could have ever come about by chance. When I see how science is, continually, discovering more and more complexities in organisms, in matter, in the constituents of matter and in the universe itself, I find it hard to imagine how there couldn't have been an architect of some kind. I haven't come to this conclusion using deductive reasoning or the scientific method. I've come to this conclusion mainly through my own experiences, my own thought processes, and basically through experiences with my own self with respect to everything else.
This isn't a scientific opinion. I acknowledge this. But like Tumbleweed, I think that science and human logic will never come close to understanding what I would loosely call "God". So I don't think my lack of empirical evidence is something to be worried about. I don't think that my acceptance of a "God" despite lack of evidence constitutes blind faith, because I have come to this conclusion of my own accord, by my own reasoning (inductive and deductive). I don't think this is something that most theists have in common with me.
Last edited:
