-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Deism is not gutless...
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
And agnostics (yours truly!) hide behind the answer "I don't know", atheists behind the demand for the kind of evidence that is designed to exclude support for the propositions they reject to begin with, theists behind claims about the status of sacred texts and/or the weight that should be granted to subjective experiences, the spiritual behind vague or nonexistent ontological commitments, new agers behind various combinations of attempts to combine reinterpretations of ancient traditions with the kind of "science" practiced when alchemy and physics were considered equally scientific, etc. We all "hide behind" what we believe to be the right approach to answering questions and the answers. Deists don't "hide behind" their claims of knowledge any more or less than the rest of us.
Refusing to even ask questions or explore alternative views, perhaps. Intellectual dishonesty is, IMO.
I wouldn't say that they necessarily do this. Most theists I know don't explore anything, because their religion tells them what the nature of god is. Those theists who do explore the nature of god (and there are many) are in no better or worse a position then deists in terms of what epistemic and ontological commitments they make: deists claim that deity is not participatory, and theists disagree. These are ontological claims (the epistemic claim that god is not knowable is held by at least a very large majority of theists, considering how large a role the necessarily unfathomable, unknowable nature of god has played in Islam, Gnosticism, Christian mysticism, etc.).
Deists make an ontological commitment: god exists. Many if not most atheists make no such commitment, and agnostics (such as, again, yours truly) are defined by the refusal to make such a commitment.
Last edited:
Thana
Lady
Deists hide behind a statement that cannot be verified either way. And yes, some are in the same boat but the question was whether or not it is gutless and I said that it is somewhat.
I wouldn't say intellectual dishonesty is gutless, just dishonest. I think dishonesty has more to do with manipulation than it does with cowardice.
They explore the idea that you can know more about God than just His existence. That is what I said, and Theists do so. Study is valued very highly in almost all Theistic religions.
Deists have nothing but one assertion, That's all they have and all they say and all they are. It's not much of a belief system, or a religion. And they avoid the scrutiny that Theists and Atheists experience, because they have nothing of substance to contribute. I find their lack rather craven, but that's my own personal opinion. I'm not stating it as fact.
There is very little evidence for the existence of god that I regard as actually being evidence (they only argument I have some trouble with, in terms of refuting, is the fine-tuning problem). However, basically all such evidence is evidence for the god of deism: if any arguments that there exists some creator or designer have merit, they are evidence at least for deism and at most for deism and particular forms of theism. To the extent, then, that any polytheistic, theistic, or similar belief is verifiable, so is deism. After all, if any religious view in which there exists a god or gods can be verified, so can deism. If deism can't, then neither can any other belief in god or gods.
Everyone is in the same boat (at least insofar as asserting that one's interpretation of evidence, the questions, and one's answers to the questions is somehow "hiding"). How is it gutless to suppose that there exists a creator deity who set the universe in motion (Newton's clockmaker, perhaps the deistic exemplar)?
Good point! I guess I equated certain forms of what I regard as intellectual dishonesty and as gutless with intellectual dishonesty more generally. But you are right: intellectual dishonesty is dishonest, but not necessarily gutless. I guess I am also confused what, exactly, it means for someone's epistemology to be considered gutless.
To the extent they do (and they frequently don't, as a common theistic position since the origins of theism has been that god is unknowable; this isn't deism it is a quintessential form of Gnosticism commonly found in other theistic worldviews), then so do deists (and atheists, for that matter). Deists explore this idea and conclude that the answer is in general negative other than that whatever this entity's nature is, it doesn't involve interacting with creation (i.e., the deist god set things in motion, but did not/does not participate further). Theists explore this idea and argue that god exists and participates. Atheists explore it and argue god doesn't exist and therefore can't participate.
The same is true of deism, which emerged from intellectual traditions that arose amid the highest intellectual circles of the early modern period. Also, study doesn't mean exploring the nature of god. Theology was developed out of a combination of Christian thought and Greek philosophy. It emerged (and was variously encouraged and discouraged) in Jewish and Muslim thought as well as other theistic movements largely as a result of the influence of Christianity and Greek thought (which, e.g., Muslims not only imported via Christianity but also directly). Even in the most active periods of theological discourse in Christianity, much of theology is more properly a matter of Christology, whilst e.g., Muslims and many gnostic sects/traditions held god to be unknowable. Deism emerged from Western (Christian) intellectual discourse as a denial of the revelatory nature of traditional Christian doctrine. It affirmed the existence of God as a Supreme Entity/Being and creator but denied that this entity revealed him/her/itself through scripture or any other means.
Which is?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Wow, you guys are reading much more into it then was meant. Deism is gutless not because of some imaginary salvation or afterlife or philosophical deficiency, but because of discrimination in this life. Most of what you say is true, there's little difference in actions or in motivations, or even outlook, but deists are spared much of the approbation applied to atheists by theists. How can recognition and mention of this of this fact be rude per se? What's gutless about being a deist is, I believe, akin to, but not as severe as blacks who used to "pass for white."
Last edited:
There are many differences between atheism and deism. For instance, atheism can be arrived at rationally.
Right: it's the acceptance of a god while simultaneously denying anything that could serve as justification for acceptance of a god.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
From which statement I deduce that you haven't read Xenophon's Memorabilia.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Name them...
I already mentioned one of the biggest: atheism can be arrived at rationally.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
You said many, yet you only name one, and that one is pure speculation. Name the rest...
It isn't speculation that the tenets of deism deny any rational foundation for deism.
No.
I have, and in Greek. Are you familiar with the Socratic problem?
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
No, I just didn't like the way I was asked.That is what I thought...you can't.