Why isn't Deism under "secular beliefs"?

[Very_Irreverand_Bill]

I was wonderong why Deism is'nt under "secular beliefs"?
Deism has been one of the philosophies that has most championed Secularism.

In Reason:
Irreverand Bill

 

[Bishka]

I would think because Deism still has a belief that there is a God.

 

[lilithu]

I was wonderong why Deism is'nt under "secular beliefs"?
Deism has been one of the philosophies that has most championed Secularism.

In Reason:
Irreverand Bill

Just because it champions "Secularism" doesn't make it secular itself.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

You're right. I was first a Catholic THEN a Deist after I ran out and got a copy of Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". Now, I have to admit, as much as I loved his book and abilities to reason, he felt absolute about a Creator and I don't . But personally, I feel there's a fine line between agnosticsm and Deism because one doesn't believe a God can be proven or disproven while the other (Deism) doesn't believe that the "Holy Books" can be proven. In fact, Paine makes it clear that they're fables based on mythology. That's a very secular way to think and he ended up with his bones scattered and no 'christian' burial for believing this way unto his death. So, it is a very secular belief but beckysoup is probably right---its probably not here because of the belief in a Creator or Higher Power. Pantheism is the same--the belief of God as seen in nature and it's not listed here either. *shrug*

 

[lilithu]

You're right. I was first a Catholic THEN a Deist after I ran out and got a copy of Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". Now, I have to admit, as much as I loved his book and abilities to reason, he felt absolute about a Creator and I don't . But personally, I feel there's a fine line between agnosticsm and Deism because one doesn't believe a God can be proven or disproven while the other (Deism) doesn't believe that the "Holy Books" can be proven. In fact, Paine makes it clear that they're fables based on mythology. That's a very secular way to think and he ended up with his bones scattered and no 'christian' burial for believing this way unto his death. So, it is a very secular belief but beckysoup is probably right---its probably not here because of the belief in a Creator or Higher Power. Pantheism is the same--the belief of God as seen in nature and it's not listed here either. *shrug*

I suppose I'm confused as to what you mean by "secular" or "proven." UUs don't believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. Some of us believe that they're divinely *inspired.* Some of us think that they're myths. Some of us think that the distinction is irrelevant. And UUs strongly support the separation of church and state and the right of everyone to freedom of conscience. We support many of the things that are considered secular. But we ourselves are not secular. We are a religion.

Interesting question tho, what does it mean to be secular?

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

Well, in this context written it seems to mean 'worldly'--without obligatory guilt that often comes with religion. Encarta: sec·u·lar [ sékyələr ]

adjective Definition: 1. not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters

secular education

2. not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature

As far as what I meant be 'proven'....I will put it to you this way, prove to me that there is a god. And then try to prove that there isn't. As an agnostic, I don't believe any of it can be proven. Many have FAITH that a god or gods exist but proof? There isn't any and people have tried hard to convince me--but they still have no proof.

 

[lilithu]

Well, in this context written it seems to mean 'worldly'--without obligatory guilt that often comes with religion.

"Worldly" and guilt are two separate issues.

Encarta: sec·u·lar [ sékyələr ] adjective Definition: 1. not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters

secular education

2. not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature

Interesting that the definition conflates two separate things, concerned with religion and controlled by a religious body. They are not the same thing.

As far as what I meant be 'proven'....I will put it to you this way, prove to me that there is a god. And then try to prove that there isn't. As an agnostic, I don't believe any of it can be proven. Many have FAITH that a god or gods exist but proof? There isn't any and people have tried hard to convince me--but they still have no proof.

I don't believe that the existence of God can be proven either way either. But that to me is not the same as saying 'the "Holy Books" can't be "proven." Again, it depends on what one means by "proven."

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

You're digging holes. Ok, for the sake of the argument, worldly does mean something different than guilt. However, I was referring to obligatory guilt that comes with religion. Worldly people--or secular people do not have obligatory guilt that is based upon an institution.

Interesting that the definition conflates two separate things, concerned with religion and controlled by a religious body. They are not the same thing.

You left off "sprirituality" which can inflict guilt as well.
As far as the "Holy Books" they cannot be proven either. Let's dumb this down and just go with the pros.
prov·en [ prvən ]

adjective Definition: 1. tried and tested: done or used before and known to work or be satisfactory

2. proved true: shown to be true beyond any doubt

None of the religious books can do this. That is why there are so many different denominations within each sect of religious organizations. Each person interprets differently even within each sect. Why? Because nothing can be proven. If it could, no one would need faith.

 

[lilithu]

You're digging holes.

I don't think so. I think I'm asking you to clarify your statements.

Ok, for the sake of the argument, worldly does mean something different than guilt. However, I was referring to obligatory guilt that comes with religion. Worldly people--or secular people do not have obligatory guilt that is based upon an institution.

What guilt would that be?

You left off "sprirituality" which can inflict guilt as well.

Yes, I left off spirituality for the sake of brevity but it doesn't change my point. Being concerned with religion and/or spirituality is not the same as being controlled by a religious body.

As far as the "Holy Books" they cannot be proven either. Let's dumb this down and just go with the pros.
prov·en [ prvən ]

adjective Definition: 1. tried and tested: done or used before and known to work or be satisfactory

2. proved true: shown to be true beyond any doubt

None of the religious books can do this. That is why there are so many different denominations within each sect of religious organizations. Each person interprets differently even within each sect. Why? Because nothing can be proven. If it could, no one would need faith.

And I find myself needing to repeat "what do you mean by proven"? I would say that many people have used what is in those books and found them to work or be satisfactory in their lives. If you go by definition 1. then yes, the books are proven for those people. As for definition 2., I would have to ask, what is "true"?

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

I don't think so. I think I'm asking you to clarify your statements.

And I did but you're one of those people who likes splitting hairs for the sake of the argument. ok.

What guilt would that be?

fornication, adultery, drunkedness, smoking pot, etc. The religious institutions are chock full of 'dos and don'ts' that are comepletely natural for humans. And this instills a sense of 'look but don't touch' to grief stricken, guilt ridden people. Its the ultimate mind control.

Yes, I left off spirituality for the sake of brevity but it doesn't change my point. Being concerned with religion and/or spirituality is not the same as being controlled by a religious body.

for the sake of brevity? haha. religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive to religious institutions, but no one in their right mind could deny that this is where you will find them at work the most.

And I find myself needing to repeat "what do you mean by proven"? I would say that many people have used what is in those books and found them to work or be satisfactory in their lives. If you go by definition 1. then yes, the books are proven for those people. As for definition 2., I would have to ask, what is "true"?

How do you know it's satisfactory in their lives? Because they say so? If you believe what people say then I suggest you join christianity. The very foundation of it is based on what people said.
And I will leave the rest to Encarta as they are the pros, and you know what is true and can be proven and what isn't. And the bible cannot be proven and neither can any other religious book--that was my point and it was made. IF you can ever proove them, though and find the real 'truth', you let me know. You could potentially be richer than Gates. No one would need second hand revelation or faith anymore. No more semantics. It's 4 am where I am.

 

[lilithu]

And I did but you're one of those people who likes splitting hairs for the sake of the argument. ok.

No, I am actually trying to make a point. You're just not getting it.

fornication, adultery, drunkedness, smoking pot, etc. The religious institutions are chock full of 'dos and don'ts' that are comepletely natural for humans. And this instills a sense of 'look but don't touch' to grief stricken, guilt ridden people. Its the ultimate mind control.

Overgeneralizations, and rather tedious at that.

for the sake of brevity? haha. religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive to religious institutions, but no one in their right mind could deny that this is where you will find them at work the most.

The POINT was the definition of what is secular, and whether Deism is secular. If the definition of secular is not being controlled by religious institutions then Deism is secular. If the definition of secular is not being concerned with religion and/or spirituality, then Deism is not secular. As I have been saying, there is a functional difference between the two definitions.

How do you know it's satisfactory in their lives? Because they say so?

Yes, I do trust people to be the best judges of what works for them in their own lives. What would you suggest would be a better measure?

And I will leave the rest to Encarta as they are the pros, and you know what is true and can be proven and what isn't. And the bible cannot be proven and neither can any other religious book--that was my point and it was made. IF you can ever proove them, though and find the real 'truth', you let me know. You could potentially be richer than Gates. No one would need second hand revelation or faith anymore. No more semantics. It's 4 am where I am.

As I said, if "proven" means that it's been found to work for someone then the holy books have already been "proven" for those people. You are assuming that proof requires establishing a single "real truth." That assumption is not borne out in the first definition that you gave from Encarta.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm moving this thread to General Religious Debates since most of the posts by far are debate.