classical and modern Deism

[Laila369]

I was a Muslim all my life , but have recently converted to Deism. I was confused about the difference between classical & modern Deism , I have heard classical Deists think God Is watching , & modern Deists think he is not , but either way God does not intervine in the world. Does this mean Deists don't believe God helps those who need him ? Or answers prayer ? I know most of Deists don't pray , but I just believe that God gave us a lot to just walk away and not do anything more, do Deists also believe that ?

 

[Deidre]

Welcome to the forum, Laila! I noticed your topic here, and I'm relatively new to Deism, also. I was a lifelong Christian until about 4 years ago, and have looked into different paths, and feel at my best here. The central idea in Deism is that the idea of God is derived through reason, not religious doctrine. A lot of what you learned in Islam, you might still hold onto however, without even realizing it. I know this is true for me, with Christianity. I don't want to believe that a god of the universe, created it and its inhabitants, and then...just sits by and 'doesn't care.' But, that could be. He can be whatever he likes, really. That to me, is the beauty of Deism...I believe that a deity exists out of my own reasoning, but beyond that...I live my life as best I can, and I relinquish my expectations of a deity. I had expectations of a god when I was following Christianity, but once you abandon religion, your ideas are your own. Deism doesn't tell you what to believe, it lets you figure it out, in your own reasoning. I think that God may let it all just roll on without his intervention, but to me, that doesn't mean he doesn't care. The Abrahamic faiths all paint this idea of God as humans should expect him/it to 'care,' and to love us. He/It may...or not. It doesn't have to be answered, really. God doesn't need to be involved at all in my life, for me to believe he/it exists. (but this is where I'm at on my own path)

I like your avatar, I used to use that symbol in my signature. Look forward to reading your posts.

 

[Laila369]

Welcome to the forum, Laila! I noticed your topic here, and I'm relatively new to Deism, also. I was a lifelong Christian until about 4 years ago, and have looked into different paths, and feel at my best here. The central idea in Deism is that the idea of God is derived through reason, not religious doctrine. A lot of what you learned in Islam, you might still hold onto however, without even realizing it. I know this is true for me, with Christianity. I don't want to believe that a god of the universe, created it and its inhabitants, and then...just sits by and 'doesn't care.' But, that could be. He can be whatever he likes, really. That to me, is the beauty of Deism...I believe that a deity exists out my own reasoning, but beyond that...I live my life as best I can, and I relinquish my expectations of a deity. I had expectations of a god when I was following Christianity, but once you abandon religion, your ideas are your own. Deism doesn't tell you what to believe, it lets you figure it out, in your own reasoning. I think that God may let it all just roll on without his intervention, but to me, that doesn't mean he doesn't care.

I like your avatar, I used to use that symbol in my signature. Look forward to reading

you're right , but it's not that I hold on to my traditions in Islam , it's just that I would like to believe that if I need god , he would be there & at least hear my prayers , with islam it was nothing like that I was just reciting what I read in a book , so it's more of what I want to believe, thanks.

 

[Deidre]

We will never know for sure, but maybe God does listen. I pray, still. And I choose to believe that 'he/it' is listening. If only to give me more strength to handling a difficult situation, etc. I pray differently than I used to. The nice thing now is, you can choose your own way. No 'rules' anymore. There is a lot of good info in the deism section here, and you might like this site for more info, too: Welcome To The Deism Site!

 

[Laila369]

We will never know for sure, but maybe God does listen. I pray, still. And I choose to believe that 'he/it' is listening. If only to give me more strength to handling a difficult situation, etc. I pray differently than I used to. The nice thing now is, you can choose your own way. No 'rules' anymore. There is a lot of good info in the deism section here, and you might like this site for more info, too: Welcome To The Deism Site!

Thank you soo much

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

you're right , but it's not that I hold on to my traditions in Islam , it's just that I would like to believe that if I need god , he would be there & at least hear my prayers , with islam it was nothing like that I was just reciting what I read in a book , so it's more of what I want to believe, thanks.

It's not that God won't answer your prayers, it's that It mustn't, as it would undermine our free will if we even knew God existed. And, prayer can be helpful for those that want to, sort of like meditation, but an omnipresent God would know everything you think from birth to death.

And the clockmaker analogy that God wound up this universe then walked away, just doesn't make sense. Why would God go to all that trouble and then just walk away? Fact is that analogy is a 19th Century Christian argument against deism that even made it into the dictionary. God, if It exists, must certainly care and be watching with great interest. After all, it appears that we sentient creatures with free will are the only apparent reason for Creation. Bestowing on us the gift of free will is the only thing I can think of that an omnipotent God couldn't do instantly because it would have to be done without us knowing.

 

[InquisitiveScholar]

After all, it appears that we sentient creatures with free will are the only apparent reason for Creation. Bestowing on us the gift of free will is the only thing I can think of that an omnipotent God couldn't do instantly because it would have to be done without us knowing.

I would have to disagree with this statement. First there is no hard evidence that we are the only sentient beings in the universe, perhaps in our own little sand box yes, but the universe is incomprehensibly vast. Second, I would have to agree with the statement that Ahura Mazda, God, The Sky Father, Allah, what ever name you so desire to label it, would be more like a clock maker who loves to stare at his clocks rather than a Gardener who constantly tends to his garden. I know it may seem a little odd that a Zoroastrian would be commenting on this but I have studied every religion I could get my hands on, including the cult of Scientology (Biggest Load of Crap I have ever read). In short, I find the idea of a Clock Maker much more comforting than a Gardener.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I would have to disagree with this statement. First there is no hard evidence that we are the only sentient beings in the universe, perhaps in our own little sand box yes, but the universe is incomprehensibly vast.

I didn't say otherwise, and agree anyway--"we" is used as a collective for all sentients.

Second, I would have to agree with the statement that Ahura Mazda, God, The Sky Father, Allah, what ever name you so desire to label it, would be more like a clock maker who loves to stare at his clocks rather than a Gardener who constantly tends to his garden.

I'm contending that God has not intervened in the "Garden" since it's creation--the reason being in order not to disturb our free will. God, if It exists, apparently created this universe to spawn us in a rational, natural environment with a 13 billion year firewall between us and It. And It isn't watching clocks. It's watching the fruit growing in the garden (organically), to use the fruit analogy. And when that fruit matures, we don't know what happens.

I know it may seem a little odd that a Zoroastrian would be commenting on this but I have studied every religion I could get my hands on, including the cult of Scientology (Biggest Load of Crap I have ever read). In short, I find the idea of a Clock Maker much more comforting than a Gardener.

Zoroastrianism is a milder form of revealed religion, but revealed nonetheless. The main problem is that it talks about evil as an external force in the universe, when all evil comes from sentients choosing to put their rights above the rights of their fellow sentients, all of whom have equal rights; based on the assumption that all sentients want and benefit from good order, except for anarchists and despots. The motivation for pursuing such good order is enlightened self-interest.

The universe and all creatures which are not fully self-aware, are innocent. Morality is really simple, but religions make it complex in order to demagogue their followers, even though most of them give lip service to that simple principle known in one form or another as the Golden Rule. I state is as, "Honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud." All else is individually determined virtue.

The root of all evil is a moral/legal double standard which violates the equal rights we all have. We are not created equal, but our sentience makes our rights equal.

 

[Neo Deist]

Classical Deism: the belief in God, but not religions that came about through divine revelation. God was the creator, set everything in motion, and then moved on (or does not care one way or another). Jesus was a man, a teacher, and was crucified under the Roman Empire (but not the way the Bible depicts). There was no resurrection.

Modern Deism: the belief in God, but not revealed religions. God was the creator, set everything in motion, and the universe works according to the laws of nature that God made. Views about divine intervention are mixed, but many believe in the concept of free will, and use that to explain why God does not answer prayers, prevent crimes, or stop natural disasters (nature follows its natural path). Jesus was a man, a teacher, and was crucified under the Roman Empire. There was no resurrection.

These are the very basics principles that define deism. Many people will expand upon them, and even create sub-classes such as Polydeism, Christian Deism, Progressive Deism, etc. Regardless of label, deism is a personal thing, and only you can define what you believe in.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Classical Deism: the belief in God, but not religions that came about through divine revelation. God was the creator, set everything in motion, and then moved on (or does not care one way or another).

That moving on thing, while there might have been a few deists who thought, it mainly came from Christians in the 19th century, trying to make deism seem as unappealing as possible. Why would God create the universe then walk away or not care? It seems evident that there's only one purpose for the universe, to spawn sentient creatures with free will who can exercise that will without divine influence. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly.

Jesus was a man, a teacher, and was crucified under the Roman Empire (but not the way the Bible depicts). There was no resurrection.

I agree. And it's becoming apparent that the earliest "Christians" didn't believe in a bodily resurrection anyway.

Modern Deism: the belief in God, but not revealed religions. God was the creator, set everything in motion, and the universe works according to the laws of nature that God made. Views about divine intervention are mixed, but many believe in the concept of free will, and use that to explain why God does not answer prayers, prevent crimes, or stop natural disasters (nature follows its natural path).

Without the clockmaker God, that's pretty much the same thing as classic deism. The problem is there are all kinds of hyphenated deisms, so much so that it almost dilutes the term into meaninglessness--and that may be the intent.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I thought deism was a straight forward believe that God exists and He doesnt interact with its creation. Just as an atheist doesnt believe in deities.

Unless the definition differs by how people are influenced by religions they disagree with?

Classical Deism: the belief in God, but not religions that came about through divine revelation. God was the creator, set everything in motion, and then moved on (or does not care one way or another). Jesus was a man, a teacher, and was crucified under the Roman Empire (but not the way the Bible depicts). There was no resurrection.

Modern Deism: the belief in God, but not revealed religions. God was the creator, set everything in motion, and the universe works according to the laws of nature that God made. Views about divine intervention are mixed, but many believe in the concept of free will, and use that to explain why God does not answer prayers, prevent crimes, or stop natural disasters (nature follows its natural path). Jesus was a man, a teacher, and was crucified under the Roman Empire. There was no resurrection.

These are the very basics principles that define deism. Many people will expand upon them, and even create sub-classes such as Polydeism, Christian Deism, Progressive Deism, etc. Regardless of label, deism is a personal thing, and only you can define what you believe in.

 

[columbus]

I thought deism was a straight forward believe that God exists and He doesnt interact with its creation. Just as an atheist doesnt believe in deities.

Unless the definition differs by how people are influenced by religions they disagree with?

I know!
It is like that's just too simple so people immediately start anthropomorphizing.

I don't personally feel too attached to the label, so I don't see any reason to argue about stuff like freewill. But @ThePainefulTruth is adding something that just isn't there. People always seem to want to do that.
Tom

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I thought deism was a straight forward believe that God exists and He doesnt interact with its creation. Just as an atheist doesnt believe in deities.

Unless the definition differs by how people are influenced by religions they disagree with?

Like I've said, people glom onto it because its emphasis on reason is becoming popular; but they putz with the core tenet, a laissez faire God, in order to attempt to make it all inclusive--at the expense of reason.

I know!
It is like that's just too simple so people immediately start anthropomorphizing.

I don't personally feel too attached to the label, so I don't see any reason to argue about stuff like freewill. But @ThePainefulTruth is adding something that just isn't there. People always seem to want to do that.
Tom

What am I adding? I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but it's one thing to state a premise (a laissez faire God created the universe), and its another to speculate about rational corollaries to that premise. Ideas such as Christian-deism are irrational speculations because a laissez faire God is contradictory with a interventionist God.

 

[jeager106]

Hold da phone! Need yer help: Definition of deism:
deism
noun1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

What does deism mean to you deists?
Sounds like a middle of the road approach requiring little committment. Yes?

 

[columbus]

Hold da phone! Need yer help: Definition of deism:
deism
noun1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

What does deism mean to you deists?

Those definitions are close enough for most purposes.
They're a bit like defining Christianity as believing in Jesus. Accurate in a simplistic sort of way. But different people have different interpretations of those simple concepts. Paine and I obviously don't agree about everything, but I would never suggest that he is not deist.

Sounds like a middle of the road approach requiring little committment. Yes?

What it lacks in commitment to torturous rationalizing of irrational ideas and submission to human authority it makes up in other ways. Commitment to observation and reason for one. Also the construction of an objective morality using the tools we have, such as they are.

Tom

 

[jeager106]

Thank you Tom.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hold da phone! Need yer help: Definition of deism:
deism
noun1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

What does deism mean to you deists?
Sounds like a middle of the road approach requiring little committment. Yes?

Few if any deists would agree with the underlined portion of #2. There's nothing in reason to base that assumption on, and actually is illogical since it suggests that God created the world for no reason. In fact it's source is from within Christianity which had the similar Watchmaker analogy inserted into 19th century dictionaries to make God appear disinterested and uncaring. An omnipotent God could have made the universe in an instant, just made to look 13 billion years old, but that would have been a lie--making God a lier.

6000 BC is the age of the man made lie which claims the universe was created then. What a massive coincidence.