Just Curious About Deism

[Draupadi]

I did some research on Deism and have the following questions-

1. Is it mandatory to worship any deity in Deism?

2. Why can't God be involved with everything that happens in this universe? Or is this concept not general?

3. Finally I want to know which religions fall under the category of Deism?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

According to Wikipedia, some deists practice a form of prayer because they think it's good for them. An ancient Greek, Sallustius, said similar thing.

Personally, I can't see why God can't be involved. What about creation, which the Deists accept? If God thought it was worth starting a universe, we cannot rule out the possibility that be may wish to tweak it occasionally. And their position involves rejecting all mystical experiences, which have been reported by people of obvious sanity and truthfulness in all religions.

Apart from the Deists derived from Christianity, I'd say that some Confucians are Deists.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I did some research on Deism and have the following questions-

1. Is it mandatory to worship any deity in Deism?

You'll see everything in the book out there on deism, but it's mostly people trying to make deism diverse and acceptable to more people rather than pursuing the Truth. Deism, first and foremost is the reasoned approach to the existence of God(s). From that it becomes quickly apparent that all the revealed religions (which is essentially all religion) rely completely on hearsay. If God was going to reveal Itself (and it makes sense that God wouldn't do that in order to protect our free will, the purpose for the universe), God would have done so to everyone, at once, at the dawn of our self-awareness.

2. Why can't God be involved with everything that happens in this universe? Or is this concept not general?

I've never seen where deism has specified why God doesn't interact, but the protection of our free will makes a lot of sense for me as to why.

3. Finally I want to know which religions fall under the category of Deism?

None, they all rely on some degree of revelation for their authority, and grouped by convention under the label of theism, even though, technically, deism is a form of theism. The only two reasonably derived approaches to the existence of God are deism and atheism--where deism means no divine interaction since the Big Bang. That bothers a lot of people because they just don't want to live with the doubt. But you get used to it, and even come to accept why it's necessary.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

1. Is it mandatory to worship any deity in Deism?

No, mandatory worship is not a common belief in deism, as it is generally believed that there are no consequences for refusing to do so. However, if you wish to worship God, you may certainly do so. I do at times... just not within the walls of a church or temple.

2. Why can't God be involved with everything that happens in this universe? Or is this concept not general?

That really depends on the individual deist's theological views. Some believe he/she/it physically cannot intervene, and others believe he/she/it can, but chooses not to. Personally, I believe that the laws of science and nature were created by God. God then stepped back away from the world, and did not intervene any further. It let those laws govern the world instead. However, I, myself, am unsure as to whether or not it is able to make the decision to intervene or to not intervene.

3. Finally I want to know which religions fall under the category of Deism?

Deism is a philosophy, more or less, but it could also be a religion in and of itself. To me it is both a religion and a philosophy, however, deism as a philosophy can be adhered to by any religion. There can be Christian deists, Jewish deists, Muslim deists, and pretty much any other religion as well. In essence, deism is simply the belief in a supreme being that is distant from the universe it has created. If you can manage to fit that sort of ideology into your personal religion, then voila, you are both a deist, and a practitioner of that religion.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The only two reasonably derived approaches to the existence of God are deism and atheism--where deism means no divine interaction since the Big Bang.

I respectfully digress. Agnosticism is a reasonably derived approach to the existence of a deity as well. I would go so far as to say that they probably have the upper hand as far as philosophies go, seeing as God cannot be 100% proven nor 100% disproven. We each weigh the evidence from both sides, and come to our own individual conclusions based on that, yet neither side can be absolutely proven. I just so happen to be of the persuasion that there most likely is a deity, but I will not admit such with 100% certainty.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I respectfully digress. Agnosticism is a reasonably derived approach to the existence of a deity as well. I would go so far as to say that they probably have the upper hand as far as philosophies go, seeing as God cannot be 100% proven nor 100% disproven. We each weigh the evidence from both sides, and come to our own individual conclusions based on that, yet neither side can be absolutely proven. I just so happen to be of the persuasion that there most likely is a deity, but I will not admit such with 100% certainty.

Agnosticism is more of a stance of how definite what you believe is true rather than rather than a belief of itself. Any religious/metaphysical belief can (and should) be agnostic, even strident Muslims or born again Christians. I say should be but they're not.

As for proof of God, we have no evidence at all, for or against. But that doesn't mean we can't reasonably speculate about It's motives...if it does exist.

On reasonable grounds, we can dismiss all revealed religions.

 

[Bunyip]

I would see deism as a reaction to theism, it proposes a conceptuon of god specifically different to the theistic notion in that it is not a personal, interventionist god. I would categorise deism as atheist.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I would see deism as a reaction to theism, it proposes a conceptuon of god specifically different to the theistic notion in that it is not a personal, interventionist god. I would categorise deism as atheist.

Deism, by definition and etymologically, is a belief in god. It is dealt with as being different from theism by convention due to it's original tenet that God doesn't interact in the universe--though many early deists allowed for some exceptions like divine providence, with which I strongly disagree. I'm the only deist I know of who's attempted to answer the question, why God would be laissez faire (hands off)--i.e., to maintain our free will.

But while deism is a belief in God as opposed to atheism, those are the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God that I know of. And as far as living this life, the only difference between the two is that deism offers hope. Morality is derived reasonably for both, as is the motivation for being moral.

 

[Bunyip]

Deism, by definition and etymologically, is a belief in god. It is dealt with as being different from theism by convention due to it's original tenet that God doesn't interact in the universe--though many early deists allowed for some exceptions like divine providence, with which I strongly disagree. I'm the only deist I know of who's attempted to answer the question, why God would be laissez faire (hands off)--i.e., to maintain our free will.

But while deism is a belief in God as opposed to atheism, those are the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God that I know of. And as far as living this life, the only difference between the two is that deism offers hope. Morality is derived reasonably for both, as is the motivation for being moral.

False hope is worthless. Deism is a belief in god, but not theist god, hence it is atheist. Atheist responds to THEISM, the worship of a personal interventionist god. The deist god is an entirely different concept.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

False hope is worthless. Deism is a belief in god, but not theist god, hence it is atheist. Atheist responds to THEISM, the worship of a personal interventionist god. The deist god is an entirely different concept.

Technically, deism is theism which is nothing more than a belief in God (re: the dictionary). Deism is a belief in God, but it's been made into a separate category of belief because it claims no religious authority for that belief that all the other "revealed" religions offer up. Even Buddhism has it's tenets and spirits derived through meditation or (???); while Confucianism and Tao, as I understand it, do a better job of not addressing the issue.

 

[Bunyip]

Technically, deism is theism which is nothing more than a belief in God (re: the dictionary).

No, theism is generally defined as a belief in a theistic god, a personal, interventionist god, as opposed to a deist god.

Deism is a belief in God, but it's been made into a separate category of belief because it claims no religious authority for that belief that all the other "revealed" religions offer up. Even Buddhism has it's tenets and spirits derived through meditation or (???); while Confucianism and Tao, as I understand it, do a better job of not addressing the issue.

 

[gsa]

No, theism is generally defined as a belief in a theistic god, a personal, interventionist god, as opposed to a deist god.

I think this is just a function of the history of the terms. Theism is derived from Greek, deism from Latin, and the root meaning is equivalent. I think that the terms were used interchangeably for a period.

 

[Bunyip]

I think this is just a function of the history of the terms. Theism is derived from Greek, deism from Latin, and the root meaning is equivalent. I think that the terms were used interchangeably for a period.

Yes, but the convention of using 'theism' to refer to personal, interventionist gods was established long ago - and the early deists used the term 'deist' specifically to distinguish between the theistic concept of god and the deism is identified as deism to seperate it from theism.

 

[gsa]

Yes, but the convention of using 'theism' to refer to personal, interventionist gods was established long ago - and the early deists used the term 'deist' specifically to distinguish between the theistic concept of god and the deism is identified as deism to seperate it from theism.

True, but the convention was also adopted before atheism was widespread. To me, deism is just a subset of theism, much as polytheism is.

 

[Bunyip]

True, but the convention was also adopted before atheism was widespread. To me, deism is just a subset of theism, much as polytheism is.

Then how do you distinguish between deism and theism?

I would think that it is the fact that theist gods are interventionist and deist gods are not - how would you characterise the distinction?

Personally I see deism as more accurately a subset of atheism.

 

[gsa]

Then how do you distinguish between deism and theism?

I would think that it is the fact that theist gods are interventionist and deist gods are not - how would you characterise the distinction?

)

Theism is just a belief in at least one god. Monotheism is the belief in only one, polytheism the belief in multiple, henotheism the belief in many but worship of one. Deism is just a variant of absentee gods (polydeism) or god (deism or monodeism). Whether a god intervenes or not is just a characteristic of those gods, as is the idea that god encompasses the universe and is more than the sum of its parts (panentheism).

 

[Bunyip]

)

Theism is just a belief in at least one god. Monotheism is the belief in only one, polytheism the belief in multiple, henotheism the belief in many but worship of one. Deism is just a variant of absentee gods (polydeism) or god (deism or monodeism). Whether a god intervenes or not is just a characteristic of those gods, as is the idea that god encompasses the universe and is more than the sum of its parts (panentheism).

That theism refers to theistic gods is a well established convention. THEISTIC and DEISTIC gods ave very different. As I said. Theism refers to persoanl interventionist gods.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, theism is generally defined as a belief in a theistic god, a personal, interventionist god, as opposed to a deist god.

Complain to Merriam-Webster. You're hung up on that erroneous point and it's bringing you down.

 

[gsa]

That theism refers to theistic gods is a well established convention. THEISTIC and DEISTIC gods ave very different. As I said. Theism refers to persoanl interventionist gods.

Fine. Please correct Wikipedia and the dictionaries. I see no point in discussing it further.

 

[Bunyip]

Fine. Please correct Wikipedia and the dictionaries. I see no point in discussing it further.

Why? That is where I got my definitions from. Most dictionary definitions - along with the wiki page on theism refer specifically to personal, interventionist gods.

You should have looked at that wiki page mate - it starts out by explaining that 'theism' generally refers to the traditional comcept of god found in Christianity and Islam - which is of course a personal interventionist god.

You should check, the Oxford dictionary (amoung many others) also - it defines theist gods as interventionist and personal.

As does the Farlex dictionary, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, glossaries of religious terms, philosophy texts, theological works and so on.
In fact that theism posits an interventionist god is one of the principle distinctions between theosm and deism.