Reconciling Deism with Theism

[TheKnight]

Yet you rely on reveled revelation to understand god.

Yes, that is correct.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

For the Deist, the notion that "God" is going to communicate with one person over any other smacks of hubris on the mortals part and undermines free will on "God's" part.

If "God" is "obvious" in every single tiny part of reality/creation, then why should I rely upon "revelation" to understand "God?" Why not find my own path? I'm not saying its wrong to use "revelation" as a starting point, but why cling to it?

MTF

 

[Greygon]

Deism and Theism agree on one thing - the existence of a divine.

Deists contend that God set the world in motion and then left it alone; God has no relationship with man.

However, Theists argue that God is an active participant in the universe and in the lives of men; men can know God personally.


These views seem irreconcilable, but they aren't. I don't like labels, I never have, but think with me for a moment.

The above statements are not necessarily accurate. Forgive me if this has been clarified, but I didn't see it in my review of this thread.

I can't argue with the offered definition of Deism, I am not that familiar with modern practices of it. The definition does not encompass classical deism of the small number of the group referred to as the "founding fathers" . However, I am not sure how the ideas of deism have evolved and the definition offered could express a more modern view of deism.

The definition of theism offered however is not correct. As offered, it denotes a specific form of theism, but this would be far too specific to address the actual meaning of the term theism.

Properly defined, theism is the belief in god(s). It does not require an active or passive god or gods. If we put this in zoological terms, it would be theism represents say the class(such as mammalia), while deism represents an order(such as primate). By definition all deists must be theists. However all theists need not be deists.

Theism on the other hand encompasses a wide range of views. Theism is the core of these views, be they religious or philosophical. Some theistic evolutionists assert that God interferes in the creation - often giving it a boost when nature "needs it." This is often the idea behind the ID "theory."

However there are more people who believe that God works with the hearts and souls of men; that God intervenes on the spiritual realm - communicating with and inspiring human beings.

Yet, often there is no distinction between these two forms of theism; there are many who believe in both.

Properly, these are not two [equal] forms of theism. I believe it would correct to say that the group you refer to as those holding the theory of ID would be set. Those believing that that God works in the hearts... would be a subset.

However, a deist could also hold to the theory of ID. From the Deism.com site, this definition of deism is offered:

Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature.

Given that definition, ID is wholly consistent within a framework of deism.

My question to the readers is:

Is there such a thing as Deistic-Theism?

All deists are theist -- believing in a god or gods.

There are issues I would address in the assumptions that followed, but I think the ambiguity in the offered definitions of the terms deist and theist would need to be clarified first.