Question to atheists and agnotics: why are you not a deist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

I'm not sure I can answer this question directly without running afoul of Rule 1.

Let's just say I have a low opinion of deism. It simultaneously argues that there is a creator-god AND that any evidence for a creator-god can't exist.

There's no rational way to justify deism. I mainly see it as a stepping stone for theists transitioning from classical theism to something more rational: deism is the belief system of a theist who has started applying critical thinking to miracle claims, but hasn't yet applied critical thinking to the idea of God itself.

Edit: to me, asking why I'm not a deist is kinda like asking why I don't take methadone.

 

[Altfish]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

Evidence - simple

 

[Samael_Khan]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

In order to be a deist, I have to firstly claim that a God does exists and then make the claim that he doesn't influence the world in some way. In fact I am less inclined to deism than theism because i see it as highly unlikely that someone would create a detailed world and not interact with it in some way.

 

[infrabenji]

It's a matter of proof. I haven't seen evidence for any number of gods. Evidence that meets a burden of proof analysis. Certainly, if there is a god or gods they know exactly what it would take to convince me and have as of today not provided me with any evidence subjective or objective. It's important to reserve belief till such time as the evidence warrants it. Otherwise you are assuming and your beliefs may be true or false. Certainly you would have no way of demonstrating your beliefs given you've replaced knowledge with faith. And as we know faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. I think it's important to stick as close to truth as possible that way your model of reality matches actual reality as closely as possible.

 

[Yazata]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

Is there a reason why I should be?

I suppose that a cosmological argument might unfold this way --

1. The natural space-time-matter universe exists - Premise - it seems to be self evident and it seems to be assumed by various cosmological theories.

2. For all X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient reason why X exists - Premise - the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

3. God is the sufficient reason why the universe exists - Premise - by definition from traditional natural theology

4. There is a sufficient reason why the universe exists - lemma - from 1. and 2.

5. God exists - Conclusion - from 3. and 4.

Except...

I'm not 100% convinced by #2, the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

And perhaps more decisively, I'm not at all convinced by #3, "God is the sufficient reason why the universe exists". It might be logically unobjectionable if we merely define the word 'God' that way. The problem as I see it is that this kind of move leaves 'God' as nothing more than an unknown something that supposedlly performs a metaphysical function. It doesn't deliver up a religious-style deity suitable for worship. The problem is that the word 'God' possesses countless emotional and religious connotations that this kind of argument simply can't support.

 

[F1fan]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

Because God created me to be an atheist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

Complete lack of compelling evidence for the position (i.e. belief in deity).

 

[Truthseeker]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

In my opinion, we need believers in Prophets more than we need deists. In my opinion it is also harder today than in the late 18th century to believe in God by reason alone. The reason is that the people looked around, saw the animals and plants, and there was no mechanism known by them for their existence, in their diversity and forms. Then came Darwin and others that showed a natural way for these plants and animals to evolve.

From Marriam-Webster:

Definition of deism
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural (see NATURAL entry 1 sense 8b) religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

Definition of natural:
8 b: formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation

Belief in God based on reason rather than revelation or the teaching of any specific religion is known as deism. The word originated in England in the early 17th century as a rejection of orthodox Christianity. Deists asserted that reason could find evidence of God in nature and that God had created the world and then left it to operate under the natural laws devised by God. By the late 18th century, deism was the dominant religious attitude among Europe’s educated classes; it was accepted by many upper-class Americans of the same era, including the first three US presidents.

 

[crossfire]

I'm a transtheist. Whatever beliefs or non-beliefs I may or may not hold will not affect whatever the case may be regarding the origin of the universe. Therefore, my taking up a belief in deism will only affect my subjective mind. I might entertain such a belief if such a subjective need arises, but will likely drop it after the subjective need to hold the belief passes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Belief in God based on reason rather than revelation or the teaching of any specific religion is known as deism.

I disagree. I see no reason whatsoever in deism.

At least with classical theism, a theist and I can agree that there's a set of premises, if true, would justify belief in their god. We may disagree on whether those premises are true, but at least we (generally) can agree on the logical process by which their god could potentially be established.

Deism, OTOH, doesn't work this way. A deist will agree with me on the basic premises, but arrive at a completely different conclusion. My disagreements with deists focus on epistemology and reason, which makes them much more difficult to resolve, IMO.

 

[Nimos]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

As a lot of others have answered, I see no reason to believe that the Universe or us were created for / or with a purpose. And even if it/we were, I would consider such Being as far separated from us as humanly possible and therefore pointless anyway.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How would deism benefit a person?

What's the benefit of knowing god created the universe without anything based on that knowledge to influence your life?

There are some deists who believe God can only be know through or as intermediaries so I think theism is somewhat rare if one needs something or someone to understand god experience or God itself. Just an opinion

 

[QuestioningMind]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

For the same reason that I lack any belief in magical fairies, leprechauns, and werewolves... a lack of any verifiable evidence to back up the claim.

 

[fantome profane]

Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.

 

[F1fan]

In my opinion, we need believers in Prophets more than we need deists.

Why would adults need to believe in something like prophets?

In my opinion it is also harder today than in the late 18th century to believe in God by reason alone. The reason is that the people looked around, saw the animals and plants, and there was no mechanism known by them for their existence, in their diversity and forms. Then came Darwin and others that showed a natural way for these plants and animals to evolve.

Well the people before science just made guesses, and gods were an easy solution. This belief is a hard tradition to evolve and mature passed.

 

[Truthseeker]

I disagree. I see no reason whatsoever in deism.

At least with classical theism, a theist and I can agree that there's a set of premises, if true, would justify belief in their god. We may disagree on whether those premises are true, but at least we (generally) can agree on the logical process by which their god could potentially be established.

Deism, OTOH, doesn't work this way. A deist will agree with me on the basic premises, but arrive at a completely different conclusion. My disagreements with deists focus on epistemology and reason, which makes them much more difficult to resolve, IMO.

I was quoting from the Marriam-Webster site. I wasn't clear about that. They do use reason, though you may disagree with their reason. I don't care to try anymore to convince people of the existence of God through reason. It's futile.

 

[Deidre]

I dabbled in Deism, and I'd liken it to living in an apartment building with an absentee landlord. Deism can be deeper than that, but it still requires some type of belief in a deity.

 

[firedragon]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

deism is a version of theism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Question to atheists and agnostics: Why are you not a deist?

Over a lifetime I haven't come across sufficient evidence to convince me that such exists, but as my tag shows, I do leave the door open a little as to there being some such creative force/being, just that the chances of such are quite remote. And I'm afraid the accusation that I haven't looked might rebound on those who have - in finding that which they seek all too often - given that so many seem to find different answers in their searches. I think I have satisfied myself as to doing enough work.

I should add that I see it as being essential to have some understanding of the human sphere and the world in which we find ourselves, even if such is not too extensive. So all who are capable, in my view, should at least have some knowledge (and regards the history) of philosophy, psychology, anthropology, animal behaviour, physics, biology, geology, astronomy, science in general, and perhaps politics (the least favourite for me), as well as theology if they are determined to study such. I never felt the need for the latter, given that all the rest interested me far more and I would hardly have gained anything (choosing which to believe), whereas I did gain a lot from my interest in most of the other subjects.

And I think the lack of knowledge in any of these subjects often accounts for why so many will tend to believe religious doctrine rather than accepting the best evidence in any one of these fields. The most obvious examples being evolution (which is widely accepted), the ages of events within our universe (that too), and the basis for human morality (again having good evidence for being an evolved behaviour).

My education was rather poor with regards much of this and hence I had to educate myself, which understandably will have left many holes in my knowledge, given that it wasn't structured so much as driven by interest. Still, if I was to place my bets on the belief systems of those who have a good understanding of these areas versus those having an intimate knowledge of religious scripture (but lacked all this), I would place my money on the former.

 

[stvdv]

deism is a version of theism.

a-theism is a-version of theism