Is deism as absurd as other types of theism?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on September 2, 2008 at 2:40pm

It's not absurd if it does not contradict known science, but as of yet it is highly irrelevant. I have enough things that affect my daily life to worry about before I get down the list to the creator of the universe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dawn K on September 2, 2008 at 2:50pm

Personally, I don't take being an atheist as an unchangeable position therefore I don't write off anything. But I do look at is as how probable is it. Is it more or less probable that something supernatural was the cause of our universe. If science proved that the big bang couldn't have happened without a conscious catalyst, or outside intelligent force then so be it. Although I still doubt that it would be a supernatural force but rather a natural force that we are as of yet unaware.

As for Deism, it's a non-issue. Being a deist is effectively the same as being an atheist at least in terms of how it impacts your life so I don't really see a point in considering it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Ollier on September 2, 2008 at 3:11pm

@Dawn K: No, being an atheist is not an unchangeable position and we have no need to add in a background as to why the big bang occurred however if we didn't try to discover the cause we wouldn't be very good as people who desire knowledge. Why must a god like creature be supernatural we may appear as gods to the undiscovered tribes of the amazon, does that mean we are of supernatural origin? A god is being of great power so if a person or persons created a universe through scientific methods they could be considered gods they are not however supernatural. And finally I think it is hugely important to explore as a theory, the Andromeda galaxy has no effect on our everyday life it doesn't make it any less worthy of scientific understanding

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dawn K on September 2, 2008 at 7:14pm

I think perhaps you misunderstood when I said "I don't see a point in considering it". I absolutely think we should search for the answer of why and how the big bang happened and didn't say otherwise.

What I said was that I don't see the point (for me as an atheist) considering deism. Perhaps an intelligent alien was responsible for creating our universe. That would be highly interesting and would certainly change our views. I am not a scientist so all I can do anyway is speculate, which while fun is not terribly useful. It is irrelevant to my life at this time.

And finally I think it is hugely important to explore as a theory, the Andromeda galaxy has no effect on our everyday life it doesn't make it any less worthy of scientific understanding
I'm not sure what you are talking about. What should be explored as a theory? Deism?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Ollier on September 3, 2008 at 6:15am

It was more of an add on to an earlier point, yes deism should be explored as a theory (along with all the other possibilities).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah on September 2, 2008 at 5:59pm

I have a friend who prefers deism to atheism. I don't see why. I think perhaps she just doesn't like the term 'atheist'. We both agree that there is nothing supernatural in the universe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by zack on September 2, 2008 at 9:10pm

I have no problem with deists. Deism is at least somewhat logical.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah on September 2, 2008 at 10:45pm

they're the only theists who you can have a logical conversation with about their beleifs. most theists today are deist(at least the ones around here zack), with out realizing it generally. theres that huffy girl at crondelet my friend told me about who in some science class asked the teacher "why do we have to do this any way, because god just made everything."
not so bad are the ones with scienctific minds who still choose theism(though that is kind of ....weird) or at least who grew up in an environment where education was given proper respect, 'a moins equal with religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah on September 2, 2008 at 10:40pm

your mention of 'test tube universes' reminds me of the simpsons episode where lisa gives her tooth which is in a petri dish of cola a static electric 'zap' and it grows early humans then civilization. i think you might be thinking of multiverse theory though.

deism came about, historically, when modern science was barely emerging. because half of religion was intended to explain natural phenomena which humans did not understand, the first deists in a sense were moving in a big way for the first time towards logical athe/agnosticism, by recognizing those parts of theology for what they were.

donc,(therefore,) i'd consider deism quasi logical, respectable, et c. because it addresses the aforementioned, though not the thought control and fucked spirituality of chirstianity. (deists were all christians; it was born out of the western Enlightenment, so this is the context in which it must be considered).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nghia on September 8, 2008 at 3:02am

Deism doesn't contradict with science, isn't dogmatic and doesn't make up absurd stories. Deism also doesn't impede scientific progress; so it's fine with me. Also, it really doesn't sound so illogical to me. Unlike Christianity, Islam, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Avarice on September 8, 2008 at 3:15am

Deism is truly more benign than theism, and far less binding than any religion, but one would have to ask why believe in any god or gods in the first place? My theory about deists is that they learned about the concept of god from religion, primarily christianity, but disagree with the metaphysical claims of religion. They still believe in god, but try to rationalize his seemingly apathetic stance towards the physical world. Not too bad, but my only question is would they have any idea about god if they didn't know about the religious conceptualizations of god. Furthermore, if they grew up on a deserted island with no exposure to any kind of theism, would they arrive at the same conclusions. I think not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on September 9, 2008 at 7:36pm

While Deism is more refined and logical than most forms of theism and religion, I still do not see the reason to insert a god just because we don't have everything about the Big Bang figured out. First of all, this is just the god of the gaps; we don't know, therefore a god.

Putting a god in control of the Big Bang simply causes more problems. Rather than asking how the Big Bang occurred -- and scientists are looking for a rational explanation for that, just as they did with evolution, cosmology, etc. -- we would ask how the god created the Big Bang? How did the god come to be? Is it corporeal or incorporeal? Through what mechanism can it act or have intelligence?

By going to Deism, we aren't answering any questions. We're just making more questions.

James

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page