Deism = Science, Intervention

[biased]

Continuing from this and this post I would like to bring up the assertion that deism necessarily requires one to rigorously study philosophy and science in addition to God intervening in deism. Sterling Archer claims that wikipedia (he used the word dictionary) is incorrect in its assertion that

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature.

source: Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He says we have to learn from a true Deist® rather than from "Christian rebuttals". What is the evidence to support this conclusion? Can one not simply say that God exists and that he has no part in this world akin to a very simplistic view and still be a Deist® or does it require a deep commitment to studying and laying out their beliefs in a logical and scientific fashion? Deism may be incredibly similar to naturalism but is it necessarily identical? Does Deism=Science?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am not claiming that one must rigorously learn or study but Deism changes in accordance to science and reason.

For example Deists first assumed that god answer prayers but further examinations and conclusions upon prayers proved this to be most likely false so most Deists stopped believing in this.

Deists also at one point believed that God is interested in our righteousness and deeds. This was later ruled our do to reasoning.


Deism changes drastically and when people speak of it, you must be sure which era of Deism one is using. Deism does not reform like religions do because the only true tenet of Deism is to reform based upon social standards, reasoning, science and other necessary factors.

If one does not change his or her Deos at some point then they are not Deists in purity. The Deos MUST change in understanding.

Deism does NOT equal science nor did I say such a thing but it must change in accordance to science for it to be Deism.

 

[biased]

I am not claiming that one must rigorously learn or study but Deism changes in accordance to science and reason.

For example Deists first assumed that god answer prayers but further examinations and conclusions upon prayers proved this to be most likely false so most Deists stopped believing in this.

Deists also at one point believed that God is interested in our righteousness and deeds. This was later ruled our do to reasoning.


Deism changes drastically and when people speak of it, you must be sure which era of Deism one is using. Deism does not reform like religions do because the only true tenet of Deism is to reform based upon social standards, reasoning, science and other necessary factors.

If one does not change his or her Deos at some point then they are not Deists in purity. The Deos MUST change in understanding.

Deism does NOT equal science nor did I say such a thing but it must change in accordance to science for it to be Deism.

How do you know that you're not just projecting what you believe Deism is rather than adopting what Deism's roots are? Sure some Deists may change what they believe in accordance with certain times but does that mean that it is the philosophy itself changing or is this just the individuals?

What I'm trying to get is you seem to have built up what this true Deist is and all who do not accept the principles of what you suspect Deism is are not true Deists but rather they resort to something akin to "Christian rebuttals". Deism sure doesn't seem like anything institutionalized so to say that a Deist must be THIS or THAT seems counter-intuitive.

 

[Father Heathen]

Intervention? Deism typically views any sort of "higher power" as being completely hands off.

 

[Sha'irullah]

How do you know that you're not just projecting what you believe Deism is rather than adopting what Deism's roots are? Sure some Deists may change what they believe in accordance with certain times but does that mean that it is the philosophy itself changing or is this just the individuals?

Oh you must not be reading my posts kiddo. I am not projecting what I believe is Deism I know so because I have actually spent the time reading Deistic literature from its founders, ok?

I am using Deism's roots, you are not. You are using a modern definition from a dictionary that is based from lack of understanding. Deism is not very well known so you will actually have to learn it and not acquire a definition for it as Deism heavily changes over centuries.

Deistic ideas change and it will always change as Deism is founded upon reason. The philosophy is the same which is why it changes. Deists for example did not believe in evolution at one point as it was not understood but now practically 99% of Deists do believe in evolution. It is actually deemed illogical by Deists to not believe in evolution.

Classical Deist were heavily influenced by Christian theology for example but this was later expunged from Deistic thought and almost does not exist.

Deists do not necessarily change but they do rule out certain elements. When something is proven false or wrong it is eliminated out of the thought. No evidence for angels has been proven so most Deists do not believe in angels for example. Deists always contemplate on reality and over time Deists will form a general opinion of what is truth and what is absurdity.

There is no dogma in Deism naturally as we are against it. We just have general consensuses about God and the nature of god. Some do not accept these changes often but usually these changes occur after years of thought. It is very unofficial to be honest. There is no "Council of Deists". Overtime Deists just come to a general opinion about things.

What I'm trying to get is you seem to have built up what this true Deist is and all who do not accept the principles of what you suspect Deism is are not true Deists but rather they resort to something akin to "Christian rebuttals". Deism sure doesn't seem like anything institutionalized so to say that a Deist must be THIS or THAT seems counter-intuitive.

I am by no means building an idea of true Deism, you are.
Deism will vary in opinion but there will always be a unified consensus within the philosophy. My opinions differ from mainstream Deism often and I have not expressed those opinions as of yet.

What I have said it me and time again is that Deism is NOT institutionalized hence it goes my common agreement. This is why Deism changes. If it was institutionalized how could it change which such rapid succession yet alone unformed?

You have not read nor understood an ounce of Deistic thought which is the issue here and I believe that until then you will never know what Deism is. Start by reading the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, the pinnacle of Deistic thought. Antony Flew was the later contributor to Deism by the way.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Intervention? Deism typically views any sort of "higher power" as being completely hands off.

They do now, but this was not always the case. over 4 centuries ago people like Lord Herbert did believe in intervention.

Deism only belief in god in accordance to intellect not dogma. Early Deism was very much like Christianity in certain aspects because of its fixation on a loving god. Later reforms of Deism changed this and smeared Early Deism off the map and then later Deisms erased previous concepts. This is how Deism works.

Now we are at Modern Deism. Personally I prefer going by year instead of labels

 

[tumbleweed41]

Intervention? Deism typically views any sort of "higher power" as being completely hands off.

Exactly.
A non-interventional, non-personal, non-anthropomorphic "First Cause".

 

[biased]

Deists do not necessarily change but they do rule out certain elements. When something is proven false or wrong it is eliminated out of the thought. No evidence for angels has been proven so most Deists do not believe in angels for example. Deists always contemplate on reality and over time Deists will form a general opinion of what is truth and what is absurdity.

There is no dogma in Deism naturally as we are against it. We just have general consensuses about God and the nature of god. Some do not accept these changes often but usually these changes occur after years of thought. It is very unofficial to be honest. There is no "Council of Deists". Overtime Deists just come to a general opinion about things.

I am by no means building an idea of true Deism, you are.
Deism will vary in opinion but there will always be a unified consensus within the philosophy. My opinions differ from mainstream Deism often and I have not expressed those opinions as of yet.

What I have said it me and time again is that Deism is NOT institutionalized hence it goes my common agreement. This is why Deism changes. If it was institutionalized how could it change which such rapid succession yet alone unformed?

You have not read nor understood an ounce of Deistic thought which is the issue here and I believe that until then you will never know what Deism is. Start by reading the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, the pinnacle of Deistic thought. Antony Flew was the later contributor to Deism by the way.

You still haven't shown any support that Deism is not what I said it was. Wikipedia is honestly more of an encyclopedia than a dictionary and for most topics is pretty well sourced. Dictionary is an oversimplification. You say Deists do this and Deists do that but I seem to be reading different "Deist" material than you.

You made dogmatic statements about Deism such as you MUST study philosophy and use reason to be a deist. That is dogma whether or not you like it. You keep using the word "we", who is "we"? Isn't deism just a loose collection of individuals not some unified collective with a very loose philosophy based around ideas like the Uncaused cause. You seem to be tacking extra things onto Deism then is necessary.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You still haven't shown any support that Deism is not what I said it was. Wikipedia is honestly more of an encyclopedia than a dictionary and for most topics is pretty well sourced. Dictionary is an oversimplification. You say Deists do this and Deists do that but I seem to be reading different "Deist" material than you.

You made dogmatic statements about Deism such as you MUST study philosophy and use reason to be a deist. That is dogma whether or not you like it. You keep using the word "we", who is "we"? Isn't deism just a loose collection of individuals not some unified collective with a very loose philosophy based around ideas like the Uncaused cause. You seem to be tacking extra things onto Deism then is necessary.

Ugh, this is hopeless. I never said any of the things you claimed I said. You are also contradicting yourself on many statements such as the bold printed words.

Wikipedia provided all of the information for you to understand Deism and you are obviously not reading it.

Also where are you getting this dogma from? You keep saying I am preaching dogma when I am doing the opposite.

In short......
Deism is just a philosophy with the belief in god without constraints which excludes all dogma and tenets if established religion.

Deists can believe in a loving god or an unloving god, an non-intervening god or an intervening god. Deists do have a general opinion on things such as God being a non intervening god. It is not a part of the philosophical standpoint of Deism but it was held by early Deists of the past but not so much now.

Also is English your first language?

 

[tumbleweed41]

...

You made dogmatic statements about Deism such as you MUST study philosophy and use reason to be a deist...

Actually, he said, in Deism, to understand God, one must study. Particularly science.

Most Deists I speak with believe the only way to know more about God is to know more about nature itself.
And most Deists tend to study philosophy also as a means of learning the human factor of faith and belief in God.


Are you in this DIR to argue? Or to learn more about Deism?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Actually, he said, in Deism, to understand God, one must study. Particularly science.

Most Deists I speak with believe the only way to know more about God is to know more about nature itself.
And most Deists tend to study philosophy also as a means of learning the human factor of faith and belief in God.


Are you in this DIR to argue? Or to learn more about Deism?

I just realized there is a Deism DIR. How long has this been around?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Quite a few years.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Quite a few years.

:thud: I was gonna request a Deism DIR some weeks ago. How one earth could I have missed it.

I thought I was posting int he debate section this whole time .

 

[biased]

Also where are you getting this dogma from? You keep saying I am preaching dogma when I am doing the opposite.

In short......
Deism is just a philosophy with the belief in god without constraints which excludes all dogma and tenets if established religion.

Deists can believe in a loving god or an unloving god, an non-intervening god or an intervening god. Deists do have a general opinion on things such as God being a non intervening god. It is not a part of the philosophical standpoint of Deism but it was held by early Deists of the past but not so much now.

Also is English your first language?

Yes. English is my first language. Why?

I'm here to learn I simply don't blindly believe things based off what someone says. I want to know why wikipedia is wrong and you are right. You still never provided some external source to verify it. You said I was wrong in my belief that Deists simply believe that God caused the initial jumpstart to the universe and it let it take its course with no intervention and I simply believe from my reading of wikipedia that this is indeed the most core tenant of Deism, the rest being superfluous cultural baggage.

Why is wikipedia wrong? Is it plagued by Christians who have an agenda to paint Deists in a bad light?

How is that a contradiction? I asked what you meant by "we". It seems as though you are saying there is a unified collective hence the reference to we and then insisting upon that there is no dogma.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I am going to give a little unofficial warning here that this is a DIR.
For discussion, not debate.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am going to give a little unofficial warning here that this is a DIR.
For discussion, not debate.

Can you move this to the debate section? I thought it was the debate section to begin with

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thread moved per OP's request.
​

 

[biased]

To clarify my position. I believe Deism's core fundamentals and basic doctrine from which everything else stems to be a non-intervening Uncaused first cause. The jumpstart to the universe in which it does not progress further. I do not believe that you need to use reason and science in a rigorous manner in order to arrive at this conclusion. This is akin to saying not all Christians need to be theologians yet can still believe. Sterling Archers says I am wrong and that you must use science and reason to understand Deism. I think that requiring one to use science and reason sets up an unnecessary stumbling block to those who wish to subscribe to an incredibly simple viewpoint.

I believe that adding science, reason, specifics regarding intervening prayer, evolution, etc. all comes down to the individual Deist preference and that is not binding of the doctrine in and of itself. There are indeed many Deists who have probably held that view but Deism appears to me to be a broad label/category much like Atheism. There is Atheist Humanism which is different from Atheism just as Christian Deism is different from Deism.

 

[tumbleweed41]

To clarify my position. I believe Deism's core fundamentals and basic doctrine from which everything else stems to be a non-intervening Uncaused first cause. The jumpstart to the universe in which it does not progress further. I do not believe that you need to use reason and science in a rigorous manner in order to arrive at this conclusion. This is akin to saying not all Christians need to be theologians yet can still believe. Sterling Archers says I am wrong and that you must use science and reason to understand Deism. I think that requiring one to use science and reason sets up an unnecessary stumbling block to those who wish to subscribe to an incredibly simple viewpoint.

I believe that adding science, reason, specifics regarding intervening prayer, evolution, etc. all comes down to the individual Deist preference and that is not binding of the doctrine in and of itself. There are indeed many Deists who have probably held that view but Deism appears to me to be a broad label/category much like Atheism. There is Atheist Humanism which is different from Atheism just as Christian Deism is different from Deism.

Again, Deists generally believe that to understand God, one must use science and reason.
I believe that was Sterlings position in the other thread.

 

[Sha'irullah]

To clarify my position. I believe Deism's core fundamentals and basic doctrine from which everything else stems to be a non-intervening Uncaused first cause. The jumpstart to the universe in which it does not progress further. I do not believe that you need to use reason and science in a rigorous manner in order to arrive at this conclusion. This is akin to saying not all Christians need to be theologians yet can still believe. Sterling Archers says I am wrong and that you must use science and reason to understand Deism. I think that requiring one to use science and reason sets up an unnecessary stumbling block to those who wish to subscribe to an incredibly simple viewpoint.

What you said Deism is is actually fundamentally wrong. It just means belief in god, the word Deism itself has been used to describe theists. Deism is just a Latin variant of the Greek word actually

Deists did not always believe in a non intervening god so that is not the definition of deism. READ the WIKI article, seriously. I read over 400 WPM and I went through the entire article. Modern Deism is the most recent incarnation and the primary state of Deism which believes in what you state. But it is not Deism by itself.

I believe that adding science, reason, specifics regarding intervening prayer, evolution, etc. all comes down to the individual Deist preference and that is not binding of the doctrine in and of itself. There are indeed many Deists who have probably held that view but Deism appears to me to be a broad label/category much like Atheism. There is Atheist Humanism which is different from Atheism just as Christian Deism is different from Deism.

They are preferences but they exist in practically 99% of Deists as of now. I keep trying to state to you the vastness of Deism but you keep rejecting it and the article in which you are receiving your information.
You keep applying doctrine to Deism which does not exist nor ever did. If you give Deism the definition you are giving it then you are denying history and the founding fathers of Deism.

This is like telling Jesus he is not a Christian