Deism: An Interesting Problem
Offline I was debating one of my fundie frriends during lunch the other day when a deist joined the argument. Intriuged about her religion, I began probing. As she does not have any texts to base her beliefs on there are no contradictions, etc. When I presented her with arguments designed to point out the logical inpossibilites of a god, she simply responded that her god was not omnipotent, he (or she) is just much more powerful than we are, and was able to create the Earth. She believes that god answeres prayers based on his or her personal whims -- god's more an observer than anything else.
I was unable to make much logical progress against her god, except to present the question: why reach to the spiritual realm to answer questions instead of using the physical realm of what we know for a fact to be true. To this she responded that she cannot believe that there is no soul, nothing after existance, that the universe always was.
How shuld I go about arguing this? Any input will be greatly helpful -- I'll tell you how it goes as I talk with her more.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if she believes her god answers prayers wouldn't she not really be a Deist at all?
I thought the Deists believe that a god created the Earth, gave it a spin, and just left it alone...
This is kind of cool. I was talking with my neighbor when we were drinking a few weeks ago. I told him I was an atheist and he told me he's a deist - he was kinda surprised I knew exactly what this was. In a way, atheists and deists inhabit the same universe - there is no god that is interested in what is going on - either he/she/it never existed at all or just created the universe and said "fuck it."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I'd say that's the ticket. Why create spiritual explanations with no evidence when natural explanations will do. Her unwillingness to doubt a soul is a fallacy, an argument from personal conviction. And, what meaning can be derived from the phrase 'after existence'?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Sorry, that was poorly worded. She cannot believe that we just rot in our graves when we die...
Her form of the afterlife is completely non-judgemental. She says we all go to the same place, regardless of what happens on Earth.
Oh, OK.
Well, that's all warm and fuzzy, but there's just one problem. She hasn't provided any valid reason to believe it. Strongly holding to an idea doesn't support that idea.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
So I'm the Deist friend. I suppose it may be more accurate to label me an agnostic, as rejecting Christianity has been a recent development for me, and I'm sort of still in the process of figuring things out. Currently my belief is that there is a creator, and also an afterlife, but the creator is far from the almighty God that Christians worship. I don't think he (she? it? he for the purposes of this paragraph) interferes with life on Earth or "judges" us when we die. (I'm also a firm believer that there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" person.) Basically my god would be a lot like the "Celestial Watchmakers" from the Enlightenment, if you will.
As for the choosing spiritual side versus the scientific side: there are several reasons for this. I have not been presented with enough scientific evidence to show me that the universe could have existed with out a creator. (Though I'm hoping some of you may be able to fix that.) That's the main reason; the rest is simply my "feeling" that there is something bigger than this world. Christians take God and existence and put them in this tiny box; a God that "looks" and "thinks" like them, something they can understand. I think there's something beyond that.
I'm extremely open-minded, so I'm thinking it's not impossible to convert me to Atheism. I recognize its logic and respect its need for proof and explanation. Also, I fully admire those who can live and be happy believing that when they die, that's it. Nothing more.
Sorry if that was excessively verbose, I don't get much opportunity to speak about my own religion.
Welcome to RRS.
The reason I disbelieve in a god (even a deistic one) is because I've yet to hear a definition of god that is meaningful.
The arguments against such a god usually try and show that anything that is 'supernatural' is incomprehensible to humans, i.e. our words are incapable of describing such a 'thing' and therefore any attempt to talk about it results in a string of meaningless words.
A good book is "The Case Against God" by George Smith and this topic is also quite good too. It's complex stuff and linguistic arguments so don't worry if you're not convinced. At the end of the day, a deist is a freethinker and that's what counts. Arguments about supernaturalism are purely academic.
Welcome FabricatedBliss! We're glad to have you here.
Nope, you weren't excessive at all and we're always open to hearing differing opinions.
Well, you've come to the right place.
Again, welcome!!!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Welcome FabricatedBliss! I am fairly new too and as far as spirituality is concerned I was exactly where you are now. My only advice is to listen and read as much as you can. This site has proved to provide a wealth of information for me and has helped answer some (if not all) of my questions.
You can't talk about it enough...it is the only way to get the answers you need.
Glad you decided to post here. It's always better to get someones beliefs directly from them instead of through someone else.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Great to have you here Fabricatedbliss! I can fully respect deists.
I have a question or two though and please do not take this as an attack.
If you have not been presented enough scientific evidence why not seek it out yourself?
If you do not know the answer why make one up and use it to fill the gaps?
If you feel there is something "bigger" that is understandable, I felt that way once too. But then I came to realize that the something "bigger" was just a fill in the blank answer. Instead of saying "I don't know" I would plug in "god". Then I realized I was just taking one more step than was needed and there was nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". I found when you leave holes where the knowledge is lacking finding answers is more fun. It is a continual quest of learning and I really, really love feeding my brain.
Again we are glad to have you here!
Sounds like Universalism to me. I am an atheist who also claims Universalism - I say we all go the same place when we die too - straight into the dirt
Verbose? hehe - i'm MUCH worse
Have you looked into Universalism? Universalism is a general belief that there may be a god - and if there is one - then that god is sending us all to the same place in the afterlife.
I am an atheist who claims Universalism. I explicitly reject the possibility that there is a god - but I do believe we all go the same place when we die - we all take a dirt nap forever.
If you are de-converting from Christianity (like I had) - you may find your mind has this inexplicable "need" for church (perhaps because you had it for so long before) - I attend Unitarian Universalist services here in my city. They are, essentially, a church of Humanism/Universalism.
I think you'll find that Deists and Atheists have much in common - with the exeption that the atheist finds no intellectual justification for saying there is (or may be) a god.
I don't typically argue with open-minded people in my discourse. Fundamentalists, however - I openly oppose them.
Deists and atheists, like others have said, share a lot in common, however here is an argument against deism…
Why any creator-god is impossible.
In order to create something you must exist independently from it. Thus in order to have created the universe, god must exist independent from it.
What is the universe… the universe it space and tme.
What is time… time is a measure of change. Without time we have no change, without change we have no action and without action we can have no creation, no nothing. Thus anybody who argues there god is the creator of the universe renders there god impotent.
Now in order to escape this problem many will likely try to assume that their god exists within some different kind of universe/space-time, outside of our own.
Two problems with this:
a) This makes no sense. If god is inside space and time, he is inside the universe and is therefore a natural being. To assume a ‘different’ space and time (whatever that means) is to beg the question. It’s ad hoc. How would a 'diffrent' space-time be 'diffrent'. If it's space-time it would be the same, right?
b) It simply pushes the problem one step back. So you’re simply borrowing from Paul to pay Steve. The original problem/question still remains: who is now responsible for this ‘new’ space-time? Gods older brother? Whatever is responsible for this ‘different’ space-time, is therefore god. Thus you’re refuted… your ‘god’ is not god at all. If nothing is responsible, then you concede this space-time arose by natural means, and thus you’re still refuted. You grant the fact that a universe/space-time can arise naturally so to argue that our universe needs a creator is special pleading.
So you either have to accept god cannot exist, or concede that ‘he’ is incoherent and nonsensical and nothing can be said about him. And if your god is omnipotent then he would still be able to act and create without time, which is even worse!
I tend to be a strong atheist for specific gods, like the biblical god since I can logically and rationally assess the claim about him and determine that he doesn’t exist. But on the concept of a god (i.e. the unidentified god e.g. the deist god) I would say I’m a weak atheist, however the argument I presented above can apply to any creator god, so this seems to be a case for strong atheism.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
Welcome fabricatedbliss.
I was raised in the United Methodist Church and until I was about 17 wouldn't allow myself to see things that didn't agree with my belief in god. For a little while after I left the church I would have classified myself as a deist, I still had the desire to feel there was something beyond me. The thing that changed this was when I realized that what I actually wanted was to belong to the church I grew up in. the particular church I attended was a great place, the people were wonderful and I felt that when I blatantly denied god I hurt them. I realized that the individuals from that church that I loved not god. I needed that sense of community and belonging, and I didn't know of any other place that could satisfy that need. Separating that need from the belief structure was the undoing of my thiestic (and Deistic) leanings. I would suggest why it is you believe and where exactly "needs" come from.
No Gods, Know Peace.
Please forgive me if this is not acceptable in this thread (or any other for that matter). As of right now, I classify myself as a Theist. My bf says I fall more into the category of polytheist. You see, I have some very odd views on God and religion. I believe in God, same as all Christians. But everything else I believe is more a matter of "all things are possible - to me - so why not believe in reincarnation or various gods and so on." I am told by Christians and Atheists alike that I am wrong, which does not surprise me. I guess my main question is, why do I need to explain why I believe these things? Everyone - especially my VERY Catholic mother - wants to know where my beliefs come from, where my proof is. I don't have any. I believe these things for reasons that are not logical. To me they are just as valid as my bf's reasons for not believing and my mother's reasons for being Catholic. I am the only person I know that believes what I believe. It's kinda lonely. And everyone questions it. Why can't I just have my beliefs? The Theists think I'm going to hell. The atheists think I'm delusional. I don't know what the hell the Deists think. None of it is surprising, it just kinda sucks.
Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.
If you're using your beliefs to justify some strange actions then you'd need to justify your beliefs. If you were trying to convince people to share your beliefs then you naturally need to convince them. Sounds to me like you're just making sense of the world as honestly as you can and ideally, people shouldn't be demanding justification from you...
Sounds like you're in social circle where religious beliefs are an important part of the politics, so everyone who you disagree with will demand to know why. Perhaps you should emmigrate to secular England. Other than a couple of isolated fundy groups, people's beliefs are very unpolitical. You'd only be questioned if you were using your views of the world to justify strange things but it sounds like your beliefs are just your attempt to make sense of the world and your morality is common sense freethinking.
If it weren't for the ugly religious politics in America, atheists wouldn't be complaining at you.
Thank you for understanding what I was so inelegantly trying to say. I have never been one for "witnessing." As far as Atheists go, if you guys want to suddenly find faith in God, you know where it is and you know how it works, you don't need me to tell you about it. As far as everyone else goes, I think most Christians hate me more than they
you because they feel I SHOULD adhere to their beliefs since I already believe in God. This is the main reason I do not enjoy religious debate with most people. They all think I'm crazy or damned. For once, I would like to meet someone that I could discuss my beliefs with and not be "preached" at to believe something else. I guess I relate to Atheists more than I realized. Everyone tries to convert me too. Usually, I find it is better to just keep my freaking mouth shut. If I don't talk, they can't know my beliefs and no one can tell me to change them.
Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.
That's interesting, Wishkah311. However, did you just pull your beliefs out of thin air? Did you just make them up along the way? Do you believe just whatever makes you feel good?
You say: I believe these things for reasons that are not logical.
Don't you find that, uh, unusual? In that one sentence alone, you admit that you have absolutely no reason for your beliefs other than you made it all up.
By the way, you're more than welcome to post in the Atheist vs Theist thread. Just remember this is a no-holds-barred discussion and sometimes you need a thick skin!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I didn't just make them up out of thin air, but I do recognize that most, if not all, of you would say my reasons are illogical. Belief in a god, any god is not logical. Without proof of it, it can't be logical. However, I do feel that there is a higher power known to me as God. I have felt God's presence. Call it imagination, call it delusion, call it whatever you like. I call it comforting. For me it is a mainly emotional thing. It is borne out of unanswered questions, my personal upbringing, and just this feeling I have. Many people would say that I pick and choose from religion what is convenient to me. Many would say that I created a division of Christianity just to suit my ideals. I say that I have a personal idea of what God is, of how God reacts to the world. I pull from many different faiths to come to my conclusions of what makes the most sense to me. I don't agree with organized religion (in general). For me, I cannot have faith in God through any church dogma. Many churches have made God contradictory as well as cruel and kinda nutty. That is fine for those who choose it, but I choose a different path. I cannot claim the dogma of any certain church or organized religious groups because most of those dogmas just don't make sense to me. How can God be so loving and so forgiving, then damn someone jsut for being gay. It doesn't make any sense to me. And if God is that cruel, then I don't want any part of it anyways. I chose to form my own path to follow God and worship him. What I believe makes sense to me. I believe a lot of things that don't necessarily make me happy. But they make sense to me.
Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.
What I find fascinating about your reasoning is because that's exactly how I felt as I started thinking, questioning and pulling away from theism.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I don't deny that I have doubted the existence of God. I don't deny that one day I may come to the same place you have. As for now, this is what I have. It makes me happy and it still makes sense to me. I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me in a polite manner. That is very rare in all arenas for me.
Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.
Wishkah311, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders (well, other than that one little thing
) and your posts are coherant. I may not agree, but they're honest.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
:/
:\
I find it fascinating that the concept of everlasting damnation (in the form of burning forever in torment) has persisted for so long within the Christian Church. If the bible is so open to interpretation (as many things are) why would someone choose to understand it this way? instead of another?
..in anycase, perhaps there is a hell and perhaps there isn't-- I choose to believe there is not one in the sense most people understand it-- and it's just been interpretated incorrectly for awhile. But hey.. I may be wrong. Of course.. I may be wrong about a lot of things.
Heh.. and, at least from within christian theology, I can defend such a belief biblically. (Yes, yes, i consider myself, definitively, an evangelical.)
Hmm.. in anycase. Just dropping my two cents in.
Concerning deism-- it is a rather interesting problem in my mind as well.. and the reason I choose not to believe such a belief is that I can not perceive any differing implications regarding belief or non-belief in such a construct.
If God did exist, he is not involved. If God doesn't exist, he is not involved.
So what is the purpose of believing?
Whooo hooo another de-convert. Con GRAD u la tions!!
Welcome to my world...I find that answering that question truthfully is more difficult than most people think.
No Gods, Know Peace.
I was speaking particularly of deism-- a concept of God which considers that he is God, yet he is an impersonal God.. not necessarily interested in the ungoings of life.
Hey.. someone might have a reason for believing in deism.. I just haven't met any. However, many of the founding fathers (I believe) believed such. I just, personally, cannot follow it to any particular end.
I know what you meant and what you referring to, it was just rather funny you last sentence was "What's the point of believing".
Ah. Because it's the question that you consider to be applicable towards all God beliefs?
Right!
Then why do you need him to do things for you....What can he do (specifically in this world, this isn't a metaphysical discussion about the presence or absence of a soul/heaven) that you can't?
No Gods, Know Peace.
When did I the "reason" is based upon something "he can do for you"? To believe in God because "he does something for you" is the same, to me, as saying I do my homework "for a good grade".
I do homework to learn and I believe a particular thing because I find purpose in it, not because "he gives me something".
um, typos aside, I can only guess that you're asking me why I made the assumption that god would need to do things for you?
The major difference between a deistic god and a theistic god is intervention (and a lot of dogma in some cases). If you don't believe that god can intervene in the universe, then you have a deistic god. Since the difference is the physical intervention, what do you need him to do for you that you are incapable of doing? Simple question.
No Gods, Know Peace.
Deism: Can God intervene? Yes.
Does he? No.
Does he care? Not necessarily.
Theism: Can God intervene? Yes.
Does he? Not necessarily.
Does he care? Yes.
I believe this might be a better representation of the differences between the two classifications of a "god belief".
Of course I could be wrong.. the distinction between theism and deism may be less or more-- yet I would need some sort of source.
Nevertheless, this is how I view the distinctions. And if you would ask me "What does God do for you?" again-- I would state:
Significance. (Heh.. don't turn this into a self-esteem thing-- it's more an anti-existentionalistic thing. Since I cannot comprehend humanity, as a species, existing indefinitely without some sort of outside intervention (wherever it may come from).. then I cannot help but relate anything we do, in the grand scheme of things, as insignificant as any accomplishment the dodo bird did before it's extinction. Indeed, I would go on if I chose not to believe in God, yet in the back of my mind I would have to place this opinion.. part of my personality to think in such bleak "big picture" pictures.
Um, that was a nice semantic argument that essnetially said what I said, except for the fact that I can't think of a theistic belief structure that doesn't hold that god HAS interacted with the universe. Anyway, if that's it...hhmmm....I held lingering big picture beliefs for a long time. This was mainly during my deistic phase, when I couldn't give up the purpose that religion holds. I would say that I became a full blown atheist when I was 19. (some back ground here, bear with me) When I was 18 I fell in love for the first time. Like all teenage love it was intense ( I blame it on hormones). I couldn't deal with how that relationship ended for a long time, about a year. I was having a particularly bad day when my step mother and I got into a fight. All at once, I let everything I had been holding in out. She (being a very devote xtian) parlayed everything into her beliefs. That god had a purpose, and a plan. I thought about it for about 3 weeks. Finally I realized that if this god really did have a plan it was very ill conceived and was neither merciful nor just. What purpose could giving anyone that kind of pain hold. It didn't make me a stonger better person. It didn't help me in any way. It did however open my eyes to the fact that only I could give my life purpose. To put it into science terms god was neither sufficient nor necessary for me to have a life of meaning. I was the only thing that was both sufficient and necessary for that.
That may not make much sense coming from an atheist, but that is my personal account for deconversion. I will say this as well. Until I became an atheist I had a constant battle with suicidal thoughts. I don't know if there was an actual causal relationship there, but after I hadn't thought about it for three months I noticed. I tried to be happy as a xtian, and all I ever felt was self-loathing. I am too much of a perfectionist and organized religion sets the bar at absolute perfection, which is illogical and impossible. I'm much happier as an atheist than I ever was as a theist.
No Gods, Know Peace.
This strangely parallels an experience my cousin went through.. so when you relate it, it's strange, he comes to mind. I am not saying that you guys are the same.. obviously I don't know exactly what you went through-- I just remember having this conversation with him in which he stated something along the lines of:
"If I believe there is a plan, then every failure is a failure. However, if I don't believe there is a plan, then there is no failure, only good and bad."
He was 21 and it came after a breakup.
"God has a plan for you" is a very ill-thought saying in my head.. while I may believe it, I think it suggests that everything that happens is part of the "plan" as opposed to the "plan" referring to "something he hopes for you".
The difference between:
Here is the plan of attack.
And here is the house plan.
One refers to every actions of a process. The latter refers to how something is suppose to look.
Granted.. it could be interpreted either way-- and one can choose to believe what they will. Yet.. personally.. I just think that it leads to trouble. Personally I take the stance of:
"Love God. Then, do what you want."
I believe Augustine stated it... or something along the lines-- but I'm not sure.
Yet, notice, In my first statement (my previous post) I didn't state my life would have no "meaning" if there was no God or no "purpose".. merely no perceived "significance".
And I use the word "significance" very liberally.. which I attempted to explain.
Whether secular or sacred.. my beliefs would remain similar in that the majority of ills in the world are the function of a interwoven mess of trillions of choices made by billions of people.
No matter what horrors people may believe God has done-- man has done much worse.
(It's a statement.. not necessarily meant to be picked apart. I realize one might make the "omnimax" = "pure responsiblity" arguement.. which, holds so many assumptions that I don't believe are necessary.. that I don't think it would be a prudent tangent to take. Oh, and, for the sake of the saying, I'm removing the concept of hell from this.. because.. well, hell is pretty bad-- and inconsistent with my concept of God.
"Bad things happen"-- I believe is Solomon said.. there is no "plan" necessarily in a specific instance of "bad"-- yet, nevertheless, this does not change the possibility that some "good" may come of it.
In the previous sentence "bad" and "good" are used relatively.. one may have hit his head on a metal pipe in order to learn that metal pipes should be fought with (i.e. me when I was a kid)-- it does not necessarily mean that the pain was necessary for the lesson.. thats just what happened.
Within Christian theology (I believe it can be argued) that "the plan" is merely for a reconciliation between "God" and "Man"-- yet it's up to "Man" on when that reconciliation will take place or (on an individual level) if one wants it to take place.
Yes.. but in the end-- I realize that many people are "happier" as atheist than as theist.. or other belief system. I can understand it to some extent..
And my point still stands; if you take god out of most of those statements they don't lose congruity or become nonsense. Love god then do what you want. I prefer, then do what you want.
Essentially, you could substitute eveywhere I said purpose with significance, and I can understand how significance could be derived from religion/belief. What I would like to know is why? The need is part of conditioning, and no matter how it feels that is what it is. I felt the pull of church after I left it, but all I wanted was the people in the building not he biuilding or the book inside. I just wanted community, what is that you want?
No Gods, Know Peace.
To do what it is I was meant to do. I do not think anything, with regards to my actions, would change.. however, I do believe connotations would change.
For instance. If there is a God, I live to live.
If there is no God (and we are merely the necessary product of an evolutionary system), then I live to continue my species.
In the one, I do right to do right.
In the other, I do right because to do so aids in the continuation of my species.
In the one, we can learn and change our nature.
In the other, nature changes us.
In the one, humanity will continue eternally by an external source (i.e. God)-- and therefore what I do 'matters' in the big picture.
In the other, humanity will (if history is any indication of what becomes of species) end-- and therefore what I do does 'not matter' in the big picture.
Cosmic natural selection will one day weed us out (probably), and therefore, in terms of "evolution".. does it really matter that we were able to send a man into space? or create a computer?
Other animals, we believe, do not think of this question.. and therefore they live each day without the knowledge that their species will (most likely) go extinct, and therefore they do all they can, oblivious to the probable outcome that they will fail at their "ultimate goal".
A question sticks in my head: If there is no God-- and we are merely doing what we do as part of an evolutionary system-- then we will end, as all things do-- and I can't help but ask myself, if the dodo bird built an airplane, would that have made them "more significant?
Within existentialisim (I believe) the only things that are significant are those things that are still existing in the present..
"Living for the day" doesn't work for me because my consciousness allows me to look at tomorrow-- and looking at tomorrow looks pretty bleak if we are an end unto ourselves.
If I didn't believe in God.. I would still do good.. because I cannot imagine doing anything else-- yet, what would it matter?
I am not assuming there must be some positive significance or purpose or meaning to life.. merely that when given the option between multiple options, equal in every way, I choose to look at the world through one prism and not the others.
This is kinda off the original topic, to tell the truth I'm kinda fuzzy as to what the actual topic is at this point. But The telling part of what I just read what is that you are using the "presence' of heaven to justify believing in god. I might not be a theologian, actually I'm a microbiologist, but you do realize that anything that is eternal is automatically atemporal (without time). If something is without time NOTHING MATTERS. Also,
You do realize that evolution, does not and cannot state that an individual evolves. Once an individual is born, all it can do evolutionarily is reporduce. Other than changing it's genetics make-up through mutation, it's kinda stuck. sorry, but I've yet to be 'changed by nature". I've changed myself many times, but nothing has ever changed me (sounds supisciously like you trying to make anture into an interventionalist diety).
No Gods, Know Peace.
Would it be better if I said continued indefinitely? For it would relate the same concept when I said "continued eternally"-- furthermore.. I never mentioned heaven existing eternally.. or even God existing eternally. I merely stated that I would believe him to be an external source by which humanity can be sustained indefinitely (eternally).
I was speaking of the "big picture in both these instances".. on an individual scale its quite different. Yet, to me, in the "big picture" humanity, if we are a function of evolutionary nature, will always be "doing" and "acting", in the large sense, exactly as it should.. within a system of evolutionary nature.