Reconciling Deism with Theism

[Rhonan]

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.


Deism seems much more compatible with all scientific theories: the big bang, the abiogenesis, and Darwinian evolution theories. This is true because a core value of Deism is that God does not intervene in the natural process that he reportedly set into motion; he does not augment or guide the evolutionary process along in any way.

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.


My question to the readers is:

Is there such a thing as Deistic-Theism?

The belief that God made the universe, setting off a chain of events which would create human beings - yet not changing or interfering in the domino effect he created (as far as the physical universe is concerned).

Yet, at the same time, a belief that he is active in people's spiritual lives - guiding them and giving them peace and spiritual strength so that they may prosper in their physical lives?

I don't know if this classification exists, but it seems to me that in this philosophical/spiritual belief, God would not be violating the laws of nature. It would certainly reconcile Deism with Theism - and science with religion and spiritualism.

This idea is based on some assumptions:

* God exists

* God initiated the universe, thereby indirectly but intentionally creating mankind.

* A spiritual realm exists

* Human beings have eternal souls which when in a human body, operate the mind and all its emotions as a driver would operate a vehicle

* Human beings can commune with and experience God on a spiritual level

* Gods ability to intervene in the spiritual lives of men does not in any way restrict man's free will or ability to chose for himself

* Human beings can be inspired by God, via religious teachings, scientific knowledge, or direct spiritual encounters (1).

---

I don’t know if this belief has been categorized, but it is safe to say that Deistic-Theism is the very basic framework of my understanding of God and the universe. With it, I can accept science, know that God exists, and enjoy the fact that I can know him.

Perhaps this is nothing more than my unique belief – maybe even one born of convenience. Yet it is a product of my rational way of thinking, and I thought the readers would appreciate a different perspective.

~ Rhonan


( 1. the word encounters is a bit open-ended, and could be subject to criticism - as anyone can claim divine inspiration and then act negatively on such things: Nat Turner, David Koresh, Osama bin Laden, etc. HOWEVER, all humans are subject to their own choices, their atrocities may be attributed to God, but are not approved by God - as most moral people know certain things are evil - and God isn’t evil. Therefore to tie up this lose end, I contend that rogue actions by radical fundamentalists can not be blamed on God - but perhaps something more sinister, or maybe something psychological.)

 

[Wandered Off]

If you take the broad definition that deism is the arrival at your views of the divine using your own reasoning (as opposed to second-hand revelation or outside self-proclaimed authorities), then you get to keep your deist card even with your interventionist model. It's a bit anthropocentric for my taste, though.

 

[Rhonan]

If you take the broad definition that deism is the arrival at your views of the divine using your own reasoning (as opposed to second-hand revelation or outside self-proclaimed authorities), then you get to keep your deist card even with your interventionist model. It's a bit anthropocentric for my taste, though.

I'm wasn't familiar with the term 'anthropocentric' - so I looked it up.

You could say that in a sense I have been influenced by Jeffersonian ideals (Enlightenment concepts) which are humanistic. However, because humans are consensus rational beings, I guess I'm arguing that they are capable of experiencing God on a deeper spiritual level of understanding. I'm not saying the world and its creatures don't matter - but I'm also not saying that amoebas are no better than human's either. My point was mainly describing human understanding of God and how it’s possible for a spiritual relationship to exist between them. As for other beings on earth and in the universe – we can never know to what extent they are able to perceive God – mentally or spiritually.

 

[Wandered Off]

It's the assumption that humans are the center of divine attention/intervention. "It's all about us."

 

[Rhonan]

[FONT=&quot]If you take the broad definition that deism is the arrival at your views of the divine using your own reasoning (as opposed to second-hand revelation or outside self-proclaimed authorities), then you get to keep your deist card even with your interventionist model. It's a bit anthropocentric for my taste, though.[/FONT]

Also, notice how I described my idea as Deistic-Theism. This implies that my Theism is in some ways Deist.

I must admit that I am a theist in that I believe that Christ was more than a philosopher - more than a human being. I believe he possessed the spirit of God; in this way he would still be a human, but his soul would be directly tied to God's.

I must also confess that there are certain things science just cannot explain; take today for instance. Every once in a while you hear of dead people waking up in morgues, even though they were clinically dead. This is for all purposes "a miracle." Most miracles are simply an issue of mathematics. One could say the abiogenesis of life itself was a miracle because it took a long time and because of the odds etc...

This may sound a bit more theistic than my previous statements, but I did say that deistic-theism was the very raw framework of my belief in God. Next comes my religious preference - which would be non-denominational Protestantism. My theological concepts are the foundation of some of my other beliefs - much like a pyramid.

It may sound like I am talking in circles, but I guess you could say my beliefs are very similar to Francis Collins'. Collins believes that God did not tamper with the natural process of evolution etc, but that in rare cases miracles, not relating to the Darwinian process, do occur - citing the virgin birth and the life of Christ as a few examples of this. This is not ID, as ID proponents believe that God helped evolution in some way. In his book, The Language of God Collins denounces ID as a false science.

I guess you could say I’m still trying to rationalize my beliefs. It’s easier for me to do this when I write them all down. I once had a rigid structure of beliefs; I was once a believer in the genesis version of creation. After I went to college, I accepted the notion that microevolution was a fact; then I pondered the possibility of macroevolution. Next I began exploring ID; however I soon left this thinking and have now arrived at a belief in theistic evolution. This process happened quite rapidly and was rather painful as my heart and my mind were often in conflict along the way.

I decided to register on this forum, because I was tired of hearing people say I wasn’t a Christian for my beliefs in evolution – including microevolution! (accepted even by Creationists)

Well enough about me…
What about you WanderedOff, what are your beliefs?

 

[Wandered Off]

What about you WanderedOff, what are your beliefs?

I don't want to derail your thread, but I considered myself a deist for many years, which is why I commented. These days, my beliefs are fairly well summed up here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nonrealism-god-imperative-not-indicative.html

 

[tumbleweed41]

A Deist does not assume miracles for that which he/she does not understand.
Hearing about someone waking up in the morgue is not miraculous, is is hear-say.
God is intrapersonal and does not work against natural law, this includes impregnating virgins and turning water into wine. The stories of the Bible are unprovable, and hear-say.
"Reveled Revelation" is not compatible with Deism.
I am not telling you what you may or may not call yourself in relation to your beliefs, however, belief that God used evolution is not the sole qualifier for Deism.

 

[Rhonan]

A Deist does not assume miracles for that which he/she does not understand.
Hearing about someone waking up in the morgue is not miraculous, is is hear-say.
God is intrapersonal and does not work against natural law, this includes impregnating virgins and turning water into wine. The stories of the Bible are unprovable, and hear-say.
"Reveled Revelation" is not compatible with Deism.
I am not telling you what you may or may not call yourself in relation to your beliefs, however, belief that God used evolution is not the sole qualifier for Deism.

There have been many accounts of people who died, and came back to life:

This isn't stuff of legend or myth; these are fully documented events. It may not be due to a celestial force, but these are miracles - medical miracles. It's unfair to compare these things with myth of the past.

In most cases those events cannot be explained; people who die should have remained dead. But these things happened, and because these cases exist, it means that these "miracles" do not break the natural laws of the universe.

Miracles don't necessarily have to break natural law... but anyway.

By your definition I would be classified as a Theistic Evolutionist. And I don't mind this; but I feel that this label presents confusion. I might be mistaken for an IDer, for example. Yet, I do not want to be mistaken as a Deist either - no disrespect. I value many Deist concepts; but I don't think I'll ever pledge myself fully to that philosophy.


~ Rhonan

 

[tumbleweed41]

There have been many accounts of people who died, and came back to life:

This isn't stuff of legend or myth; these are fully documented events. It may not be due to a celestial force, but these are miracles - medical miracles. It's unfair to compare these things with myth of the past.

In most cases those events cannot be explained; people who die should have remained dead. But these things happened, and because these cases exist, it means that these "miracles" do not break the natural laws of the universe.
~ Rhonan

I would love to see the documentation of unexplainable resurrection.

 

[Rhonan]

I would love to see the documentation of unexplainable resurrection.

I was going to send you a link from ABC, but it won't allow me to post URLs, as I haven't made enough postings yet.

 

[CincyJim]

... ... Is there such a thing as Deistic-Theism?... ...

Sure, why not? Both are thoughts, if you want you have the ability to combine them.

 

[TheKnight]

Deism doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand the logic behind believing that God created the world and then left it to its own devices...

 

[Wandered Off]

Deism doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand the logic behind believing that God created the world and then left it to its own devices...

One idea is that God created it with all that is necessary to work as a system without the need for repeated intervention. In this theory, it's left "to its own devices" because the devices were designed to be self-sustaining. The logic for believing this is that we have no credible, physical evidence of ongoing, divine intervention and no reason to consider one primate species on a remote planet the focus of any divine attention.

 

[tumbleweed41]

One idea is that God created it with all that is necessary to work as a system without the need for repeated intervention. In this theory, it's left "to its own devices" because the devices were designed to be self-sustaining. The logic for believing this is that we have no credible, physical evidence of ongoing, divine intervention and no reason to consider one primate species on a remote planet the focus of any divine attention.

Very well said!

 

[TheKnight]

One idea is that God created it with all that is necessary to work as a system without the need for repeated intervention. In this theory, it's left "to its own devices" because the devices were designed to be self-sustaining. The logic for believing this is that we have no credible, physical evidence of ongoing, divine intervention and no reason to consider one primate species on a remote planet the focus of any divine attention.

True, but if that's the logic then it could also be said that we don't have any physical evidence of God creating the world at all. So to believe that He created it (which is to believe that He intervened) and then stopped (decided not to keep intervening)...well, it sort of implies that something changed His mind...

 

[tumbleweed41]

True, but if that's the logic then it could also be said that we don't have any physical evidence of God creating the world at all. So to believe that He created it (which is to believe that He intervened) and then stopped (decided not to keep intervening)...well, it sort of implies that something changed His mind...

No, Deism postulates that God, or First Cause, or Prime Mover initiated creation of the universe and set it motion. No more need be done. No intervention needed. The laws of the universe resulted in the stars, planets, and eventually, life.
No miracles, no revelations, no prophets.

And it is true, there is no physical evidence of a Deistic god. Nor an Abrahamic god.

 

[TheKnight]

No, Deism postulates that God, or First Cause, or Prime Mover initiated creation of the universe and set it motion. No more need be done. No intervention needed. The laws of the universe resulted in the stars, planets, and eventually, life.
No miracles, no revelations, no prophets.

And it is true, there is no physical evidence of a Deistic god. Nor an Abrahamic god.

Hmm. I guess I don't understand why they believe in God in the first place then...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hmm. I guess I don't understand why they believe in God in the first place then...

Some do not need miracles, revelations, and prophets for faith.

 

[TheKnight]

Some do not need miracles, revelations, and prophets for faith.

I don't either. I believe in God because I see His existence as inherent. To me it's something that's just as obvious a fact as the sky appearing to be blue in the daytime.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yet you rely on reveled revelation to understand god.