What's the Point of Deism?

[Mr Spinkles]

Could you clarify your question? I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Faust]

Exercise of will as purpose for the creation. I'm only putting this out there for feedback as I am no expert on this or any other subject.

No offense intended but you have to admit it would be way better than cable.

Faust

 

[Davidium]

Faust-- There appears to be much more than the proposal of a First Cause at work here. From my understanding, Deists also propose purpose in the universe endowed by an intelligent entity acting as that First Cause.

Not all do.... That is what is difficult for some to understand about Deism. Deism sets a few basic beliefs and a methodology for determining belief. From that point, Deists follow their own experiences and reasons to all different kinds of conclusions.

I personally have been lead by my reason and experience to the position that it is more likely than not that the universe has a reason for existing. I do not know what this reason is, but will continue to ponder the subject.

Some Deists only look for a "purpose" for the reason Faust said... as a by product to the concept of Creation. I do not even really believe in creation by God... but rather beleive that there was design within the formulation of the natural laws.

So... in many ways, and for many Deists... Faust is right. Most Deists do not believe in a God that interferes in the universe... Some believe that the "higher perspective" only existed at the time of the creation/formulation of natural laws. Those who do believe in a limited interference by God, it is always in such ways that cannot be perceived by Man.

So, Universal purpose is not a belief all Deists hold.... some do, myself included. But Deism allows the freedom to go where your reason takes you, and one of the hardest things for those new to Deism to understand. In order to freely follow your Reason, you must go where it takes you.

Reason and Respect,

David

 

[Faust]

Thank you David,
I greatly appreciate your instruction on Deism, and freely admit my ignorance on the subject, I'm afraid I am taking shots in the dark on this subject and am doing the best I can based on my limited knowledge and experience of your system of belief. I do however always enjoy learning more about religion in general and although I may not share your views of creation and mans place in the universe, That does not mean I am not eager to learn more.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In order to freely follow your Reason, you must go where it takes you.

And what if I have followed my reason to the point that I equate God with the totality of nature, and therefore discard the term 'god' entirely as it becomes superfluous? Does that make me a deist, and if not, why?

 

[Davidium]

And what if I have followed my reason to the point that I equate God with the totality of nature, and therefore discard the term 'god' entirely as it becomes superfluous? Does that make me a deist, and if not, why?

There are Deists who do just that.... many use the term "panendeism" to describe this set of beliefs.

Remember, Deism has evolved much from the original Thomas Paine Classic Deism. Now there are still many Classical Deists (Watchmaker theory) out there, and they are welcome to their beliefs. In fact, I am probably between the two. The term "God" is just another term that we use for convenience. To be more accurate of my own beliefs, I should probably use something like "The Higher perspective" than the word "God".

We use the term "God" as a shorthand, as so much of language is. When you get to the nuts and bolts of the beliefs of most Deists, their concept of this "higher perspective" has almost no relation to the Abrahamic concept of "God". So, in that way, the term in superflous, it is simply used as the common term that is used.

Reason and Respect,

David

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There are Deists who do just that.... many use the term "panendeism" to describe this set of beliefs.

So a person can be both an atheist and a deist? If not, how do you distinguish between panendeism and atheism?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Davidium, you had promised a definition of 'reason'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You use a lot of big words to say nothing don't you Deut.?

As a matter of fact, no. And Faust, try being less rude next time.

 

[Faust]

In case I was insufficiently clear earlier, I tend to view epistemological relativism as the philosphical equivalent of pond scum - it sticks to everything but is essentially worthless as a transferrable selection criteria.

Sorry Deut, I was only trying to say that maybe you could be a little more explicit.
You seem to be painting with a broad brush here and without providing a little more detailed explanation of such a statement it seems to be more of an opinion than a valid argument.

 

[Davidium]

Working on the essay.... It is actually for more than just here, it will be presented as a speech later this summer... so I am taking the time to do it right.

No, because a true Atheist would not accept a collective nature as a "higher perspective"... as if the universe and nature were God itself... An Athiest would not accept that concept, which is central to panendeism.

Working on the essay, I promise... this weekend is also a festival weekend here on Galveston Island, and that means a good bit of work for me...

On a side note, to see this weekends festival... visit http://www.dickensonthestrand.com/

Reason and Respect,

David

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, because a true Atheist would not accept a collective nature as a "higher perspective"... as if the universe and nature were God itself... An Athiest would not accept that concept, which is central to panendeism.

Whoah there, what on Earth does atheism have to do with perspective--higher or otherwise? Theism is belief in a god. Atheism is not. I see no reason an atheist could not believe in a "higher perspective". Nor do I understand why atheism is not a fitting term for those who equate god with the impersonal forces of nature and therefore discard the term "god" entirely.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry Deut, I was only trying to say that maybe you could be a little more explicit.

The statement could not have been more explicit.

You seem to be painting with a broad brush here and without providing a little more detailed explanation of such a statement it seems to be more of an opinion than a valid argument.

I missed the rule prohibiting opinion.

 

[Davidium]

Mr. Sprinkles...

Once again, we are in a difference in understanding terminology. Are you putting forth the proposition that Atheists only disbelieve in the common concept of God? I had always thought that Atheists did not believe in any higher power than man....

Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part about the true nature of Atheism. I do not believe in the Abrahamic concept of God, yet I do believe in a Universal higher Perspective. I do not have the ability to know what the nature of this being is, but I have deduced his existance in the way I described earlier. This is my concept of God... what I mean when I say "Higher Perspective"...

If an atheist told me that he also believed in this concept of a "higher perspective" than man, then I would have to say that I would consider him a Theist, not an Atheist. You do not have to believe in the Abrahamic concpet of God to be a Theist. I would even go so far as to say that my fellow UU's who believe that that "interdependent web of existance" can act as a collective conscience believe in a God (higher perspective) that is just of a different form.

This is the problem we humans have with language. Deut and I are in a similar question (which I have not forgotten) in that word symbols can only represent concepts... and that representation often changes with individual perception. To me, someone who believes in the existance of a "higher perspective" beyond man is indeed a theist. Just of a different kind.

Just my humble opinion.

Reason and Respect,

David

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you putting forth the proposition that Atheists only disbelieve in the common concept of God?

Anyone who rejects belief in a given concept of God is an atheist. That is why atheism depends upon the given definition of "god". Check out this article: http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html

I had always thought that Atheists did not believe in any higher power than man....

Many atheists do not believe in any higher power than man, but it is perfectly possible for a person to be both an atheist and believe in a higher power than man. For example, I believe that gravity is a higher power than man. If god is defined as "a curvature of spacetime", then I am a theist. If god is defined as an omnipotent omnibenevolent conscious being, then I am an atheist. The label is contingent upon the definition.

I'm confused by your description of this "higher perspective"...when I think of a "being" I think of something with conscious thought. Is "higher perspective" just a fancy term for "transcendental god"?

To me, someone who believes in the existance of a "higher perspective" beyond man is indeed a theist.

To me, someone who believes in the existence of a higher perspective beyond man is exercising common sense. We don't know everything, therefore our perspective is limited. How does that equate to theism?

 

[Davidium]

Notice the difference between "higher Power" and "higher perspective" ... A power exists, a perspective must be embodied by something that can perceive it.

Gravity, while being a higher power, is not a higher perspective.

I guess you could equate a Trancendental concept of God to my concept of a "higher perspective" .... I wouldnt, but I think the two are very close. I use the term Perspective because I have no way of understanding the being that embodies that perspective.

To me, someone who believes in the existence of a higher perspective beyond man is exercising common sense. We don't know everything, therefore our perspective is limited. How does that equate to theism?

That is true, but our perspective being limited does not necessarily mean there is a being able to conceive of a perspective larger than ours. I beleive it is more likely than not, for the reasons already discussed. I would consider anyone who believes that there is a Perspective able to understand the universe as a whole would indeed be a Theist, not an Atheist. I do not believe that defining an Atheist as someone who rejects any given concept of a God. By that defination, were a Christian to reject the known concept of the Greek Gods, (Gods which regularly physically interact with humans, and share all the human faults and frailities), that Christian would then be an Atheist.

I think that in order to be an Atheist you must reject all concepts of God, including that of a higher universal perspective.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that I was not using the word Universal. Not just higher, but a perspective able to perceive the infinite universe.... in order to then understand Universal purpose.

Reason and Respect,

David

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Notice the difference between "higher Power" and "higher perspective" ... A power exists, a perspective must be embodied by something that can perceive it.

That's a non sequitur. The existence of a higher perspective is not contingent upon whether or not anything can perceive it. Later in your post, you yourself say:

That is true, but our perspective being limited does not necessarily mean there is a being able to conceive of a perspective larger than ours.

I'm feeling more and more confident that "higher perspective" is a fancy term for "god" after all.

Gravity, while being a higher power, is not a higher perspective.

Earlier you said "I had always thought that Atheists did not believe in any higher power than man.... " but this is not true. I am an atheist, and I believe in gravity (or more precisely, the approximate accuracy of the scientific model of gravity). Atheists can believe in higher powers than man...do you honestly think atheists reject black holes, earthquakes, tidal waves, and other "acts of God"? No...man isn't the highest power in the universe by a long shot. But I am wary of man's tendency to project himself onto those powers by claiming they constitute a "being" that has conscious thought and/or a moral code and/or a plan for humanity.

I guess you could equate a Trancendental concept of God to my concept of a "higher perspective" .... I wouldnt, but I think the two are very close. I use the term Perspective because I have no way of understanding the being that embodies that perspective.

By an earlier admission you hold that the existence of a higher perspective does not necessarily constitute the existence of a higher being. Now you state that even if such a being existed, you have no way of understanding it. How, then, do you warrant belief in a being which "perceives the infinite universe" and understands "Universal purpose"? If you have no way of understanding its nature, how do you know the extent of its perception or understanding?

I would consider anyone who believes that there is a Perspective able to understand the universe as a whole would indeed be a Theist, not an Atheist. I do not believe that defining an Atheist as someone who rejects any given concept of a God. By that defination, were a Christian to reject the known concept of the Greek Gods, (Gods which regularly physically interact with humans, and share all the human faults and frailities), that Christian would then be an Atheist.

Precisely. The label of a person's beliefs regarding a deity depends upon which deity we are discussing. Christians actively reject belief in the Greek gods, therefore their stance toward those gods is atheistic.

I think that in order to be an Atheist you must reject all concepts of God, including that of a higher universal perspective.

I used to feel the same way. Unfortunately such a definition would render the term "atheist" useless, as some gods are accepted by virtually everyone (i.e. gods that are synonymous with nature). Additionally, there are concepts of god of which most people are unaware, and a person cannot actively reject a concept of which s/he is unaware. That definition may very well restrict us from calling anyone an atheist.

 

[Faust]

Sorry Sprinkles and David, I have been sidetracked.
It seems to me that both of you have been debating from some sort of hybrid of the school of logical positivisim. David leans toward an incorporation of ancient and medieval, but at the same time Sprinkles with his last post,

I used to feel the same way. Unfortunately such a definition would render the term "atheist" useless, as some gods are accepted by virtually everyone (i.e. gods that are synonymous with nature). Additionally, there are concepts of god of which most people are unaware, and a person cannot actively reject a concept of which s/he is unaware. That definition may very well restrict us from calling anyone an atheist.

, has thrown me for a loop.
Could you both clarify for me and possibly dispell my confusion?
Sprinkles has seemed to have jumped into Davids camp with that statement and left my jaw hanging. I'm probably missing some nuance in Sprinkles post, but if so I can only plead ignorance.
With respect,
Faust

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Faust-- Davidium's definition of "atheist" may restrict us from calling anyone an atheist, thereby rendering the term useless. That is why I think a better definition of atheist is one who actively rejects beleif in a given god. I can't reject belief in God if god is defined as equivalent to nature, and thus I cannot be an atheist given that definition (though I would complain that the term 'god' has been rendered superfluous by it).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It seems to me that both of you have been debating from some sort of hybrid of the school of logical positivisim.

I admit I have no idea what that is lol.