Deism: Why is it wrong?

[AmbroseSJ]

prodeism:

I have read the first part of Joseph butler’s treasties on religion and found it antiquated. There was nothing that would invalidate deism, much of it could be reputed by the average layman, and, more disappointingly, it introduced no new meaningful ideas. All of this is, of course, because of its age and is not intended as an insult to the work or the author.

I don’t think you have followed Butler’s drift. The “analogy” is actually based on tangible creation (what Deists believe in,) to prove the probability that revealed religion exists. Have you gotten that far?

You are put off by the age of the book, but would that make Plato, Aristotle, and the history of great philosophers irrelevant?

The problem with Deism is that it is actually based on prejudice rather than rational thought. That is the point of Butler’s Analogy. Deists pride themselves in being strictly rational about their beliefs.

You claim that Christians put their faith in books, but that’s not true. Bible thumpers do, yes. But Catholicism puts its faith in the teachings of a Church. Why? Because Catholics believe in revealed religion (as opposed to natural religion.) They believe that God has revealed his Word through the person of Jesus Christ. His witnesses wrote books and presided over a Church. They taught and bore witness to their experience of Jesus the person, and what He said. This Church is the oracle of Divine revelation. Books are a part of our heritage, but it is what the Church says that matters to us.

You should try to enter into what Butler is saying, even if it is slow, arduous reading. Butler was an Anglican Bishop, not someone a Catholic would normally recommend for first rate reading. However, Butler exploded Deism in the 1730’s and it virtually declined into oblivion thereafter. Why? because no Deist EVER answered the book with any kind of serious refutation.

 

[prodeism]

Perhaps I have dismissed Butler prematurely so I will give him a more intense scrutny. When I say his ideas are dated I was influenced by his contention that the self and the physical body are seperate. This is incorrect. The self is contained in the physical brain and there is proof enough to make this almost irrefutable. Electro-chemical events in our brains produce the effect we call self. Change the events and the self changes. People lose there minds in that the events occurring in their brains no longer relate to reality. This is the point at which I became a deist. Also he asserts that the government of man is natural which also is a mistake. The government of the animal kingdom is natural, the gevernment of man has been corrupted by a belief in good and evil (original sin) and does not reflect the natural world.

I accept, without reservation, your assertion that your faith is in Jesus (as god) and the church. This in no way sways me toward Christianty but I accept it as a viably faith system.

It will require a couple of days to go through Butler, taking notes and such, and will be back with my analysis.

 

[FSGRY]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[prodeism]

To AmbroseSJ

I have still found nothing in Butler that would remotely challenge deism. If there is somethig specific you would like to point out I will adress it. I have no desire to argue against Christianity and I fear this is where we would go in a debate about Butler.

I am a deist through atheism. I was a true atheist, not a little girl atheist like Nietzsche or Richard Dawkins, before turning to deism. I do not believe in good and evil. I lived in the abyss and if deism could be proved wrong that is where I will return. It was in the abyss that I learned the wisdom of Socrates and the spirituality of Jesus.

You have been kind and respectful but if there is nothing more this is farewell.

 

[jschutzm]

Deism is the belief that God did create the world, but that he left it alone.

Why is this wrong?

I’m not a deist (I’m very Catholic), but let’s pretend that I am. While trying to convince me, since Deists do not believe in the Bible, you can’t really use the Bible to help the argument.

Also, do deists generally believe in salvation? Or is it practical atheism? I would guess that some do and some don’t, since deism doesn’t really have much of a belief system, but generally, do they believe in an afterlife?

Here’s the issue with most of these philosophies or disorganized religions.

What does Deism believe? – Well that depends on who you are talking to. There is no central authority in Deism - so it is hard to really nail them down.

Already I see people claiming that Deists believe ABC while others claim that they believe XYZ

So often times your arguments will fail…because the Deist will claim “that’s not what I believe”

You can claim “Deists believe that God has no purpose” and a Deist could say: “No he has a purpose just not a personal relationship with each person”

See the problem? Like pinning a wave upon the shore.

You really have to spend TIME to get to know the exact and specific beliefs of the individual Deist… general arguments don’t work.

Also… if the Deist comes from a Christian culture or their parents were Christian… then their beliefs will tend to be a hodge-podge of both, which makes things even messier.

Same thing with Wiccan, Jainism, Confucius, Budhism, etc.

 

[sw85]

The problem with Deism is that it is actually based on prejudice rather than rational thought. That is the point of Butler’s Analogy. Deists pride themselves in being strictly rational about their beliefs.

I endorse this, and it gets close to what I was saying – that deism ignores what we know must be true about God.

It ignores that because deism is largely a product of nominalism (certainly the historical deists tended toward it), and nominalism is obviously irrational. It confesses belief in the irrationality of the universe and the unreliability of the senses which tell the intellect constantly that the universe is not, in fact, irrational.

Where did nominalism come from? If you believe Michael Allen Gillespie, it actually does come from prejudice – specifically, distrust of Greek philosophers, whose works were partly reintroduced into the West by way of Muslim commentators. The Muslims had then spent the last century or so kicking Christendom’s butts in the Crusades. This kind of reflexive contempt hardly sounds like a good basis for thought. Indeed, it wasn’t – nominalism is now condemned as an error by the Church and, if you believe Gillespie, it’s given us all manners of social and political horrors.

 

[tarboy]

I wonder if some level of deism is more of a knee jerk reaction to a perceived ‘fundamentalist’ view that God is standing above your shoulder, punishing individuals and groups of people when they are bad. I think many diests/athiests are rejecting the belief of constant divine intervention by God - Example headline “PREACHER BLAMES GAYS FOR TSUNAMI”

Many lapsed Christians have rejected organized religion but retain a belief in God. They are sort of hoping for God, but don’t have any structure to support it. This includes a clear expectation on salvation. Is this the Deist you are thinking of?

I believe in prayer and subsequent inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as how God is acting in my life. If a Diest does not pray or believe in prayer, then I would consider them an Athiest and I can’t convince them of anything.

But if you can get one to start praying and to read the WORD, they will start their journey.

Deism is the belief that God did create the world, but that he left it alone.

Why is this wrong?

I’m not a deist (I’m very Catholic), but let’s pretend that I am. While trying to convince me, since Deists do not believe in the Bible, you can’t really use the Bible to help the argument.

Also, do deists generally believe in salvation? Or is it practical atheism? I would guess that some do and some don’t, since deism doesn’t really have much of a belief system, but generally, do they believe in an afterlife?

 

[system]

I’ve just finished reading the first page of this thread. I am a spiritual deist and also an excommunicated Catholic. I am very familiar with the Bible, and while I trust that the contributors here are well-meaning, they are significantly underinformed about my faith. I hope that I can make some contributions to this thread that will bridge a gap and lead to a greater understanding of Deism by Catholics. I am sure you agree that we all need to live together peacefully in this world. While we do not have to celebrate the beliefs of other, we have a much better chance at peace if we can understand and accept them.

 

[system]

Deism is sometimes called the religion of the “wind-up mouse” (or “clockwork mouse” in British parlance). The idea is that God “wound up” the universe and then set it loose to go about whatever course it happened to take, without interference.

In reply to this, it is important to point out that the “wind-up mouse” analogy is not a universally accepted central tenet of deism. My definition of Deism is a belief system that centers around the logical conclusion that some Supreme Being or Beings with power beyond the capacity for complete understanding by humans created humanity, nature and the universe, and this creation is inferred by observation of the grand design of everything around us which could not have occurred randomly. Note that my definition does not mention anything indicating a “wind-up mouse” analogy, because there are deists who simply do not believe this. Just like there are different beliefs within the realm of Christianity (e.g. some permit and other forbid divorce and remarriage), there are also different beliefs among Deists. In this particular instance, the notion of God setting the universe loose to go about whatever course it happens to take is completely rejected by Process Deists. They believe that God interacts with humanity and our world as both a divine inspirational force as well as in the role of continuing the creation process by developing new possibilities. In other words, Process Deists believe that God’s creation is ongoing and not yet complete. Since Process Deists are Deists, it cannot be said that all Deists believe that God created the universe and then left it to its own devices. However, most Deists do believe this on a very basic level. However, assigning this belief to all Deists is as erroneous as assigning a belief that divorce and remarriage is considered sinful to all Christians. Moreover, just as that could not be elevated to the level of a central tenet of Christianity, the “wind-p mouse” analogy cannot be regarded as a central or primary tenet of Deism.

 

[system]

Yeah, gotta wonder why God even bothered creating the universe if it was just to abandon it.

Deists who believe that God does not interfere with the affairs of humankind do not see God as having abandoned the universe. Rather, we see God as having provided all we need to live good and decent lives. He has given us the ability to reason and understand morality. The unique ability of human beings to reason, conclude and infer separates us from all other creatures in this world. I would say that the vast majority of Deists believe that God has a plan for His creation. This contradicts any notion that God has abandoned us.

 

[system]

Hi Jesu,

Deist posit a first cause, but they do not explore God’s essence. They say that he created the word, THEN he left it alone. In God’s case, there is no THEN. Everything is in the present. God not only creates; he maintains creatures in existence. Compare Him to a dynamo producing electricity. If the dynamo stops, the lights go out at once. If God stops maintaining you in existence, you simply disappear.

…

Deism was popular among educated people around the time of the American Revolution. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists. But it seems that most of them belonged to an organized religion anyway.

Verbum

While I’ve already discussed the notion of God leaving the universe alone which is believed by most but not all Deists, the majority of Deists see God’s maintenance of human existence in a different way. of course, Process Deists would see it much the way you described it: a dynamo that can stop and make a light go out at once. Other (the vast majority of) Deists see God as having set in motion everything humanity needs to exist, and that includes the recognition that He can also take it away. God doesn’t need to do anything to make the earth’s atmosphere breathable for humans. He has already done it. At any point in time (as time is understood by humans) God can change the composition of our atmosphere and end our lives. The result is that Deists respect the power of God just as you expressed it. But most of us do not see God as actively doing anything to maintain our existence.

As for the Founding Fathers, many of them were Christian Deists. Christian Deism is a faith based on the central tenets of Deism with a devotion to the moral teachings of Jesus while rejecting the divinity of Jesus along with any claims about miracles performed by him. Christian Deism continues to exist today. Of course, it is far less widespread than it was in the 18th Century. Obviously, followers of Christian Deism are Deists and not Christians, since they reject basic tenets of Christianity.

 

[system]

Deists are very selective about historic documents. They accept the testimony of Suetonius that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but they reject the much more widely documented testimony of Moses (and others) about the Judeo-Christian faith. Why did Suetonius speak the truth, but Moses was a liar?

I’m not sure how the Book of Exodus is a historical document. I see it as a creation myth for the Jewish people. It was written down centuries after the evens allegedly happened. Despite details given of the travels of the Israelites through the desert including places they stopped to camp, no archaeological evidence of such a mass human migration has ever been found. Even 3,000 years after the event would have happened, something should have been found. According to the Bible, “The Israelites set out from Rameses for Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting the children. A crowd of mixed ancestry also went up with them, with livestock in great abundance, both flocks and herds.” [New American Bible, Exodus 12:37-38] A group including 600,000 adult male Israelites plus women, children and people of mixed ancestry would presumably mean that at least 2 million people and all their livestock participated in this trip across the desert. It is logical to conclude that some evidence would have been left behind. But there is none. I do not, however, believe that Moses was a “liar.” I do not believe the Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt in the large numbers given in the Bible, and I do not believe Moses existed. Most ancient cultures had creation myths, and the Pentateuch is the one the Jewish people had.

 

[system]

Of course, the ultimate event which disproves deism is the Incarnation. If we can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God then we absolutely disprove deism. And that’s not terribly hard to do - see the many resources in the CA library and this forum.

I don’t know how you could possibly believe that there is proof that Jesus Christ was the incarnate son of God. When I was a practicing Catholic, I never believed that there was proof of this in a scientific or historical sense. This was something that I believed as a matter of faith, not evidence.

 

[system]

No, George Washington was a devout Anglican.

Jefferson was the Deist.

God Bless

The faith of George Washington is a matter for debate. He seems to have acted differently when within and without the glare of public view. His personal writings indicate he may not have been truly devoted to Christianity. There is no question that he outwardly wanted to appear a devout member of the Anglican church, but that doesn’t seem to have been what was in his heart, at least not completely. The Wikipedia article about George Washington’s religion is very well researched and referenced. Please see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion

for a full discussion of the topic.

As for Jefferson, his publication of what has become known as “The Jefferson Bible” is a strong indication that he was a Christian Deist.

 

[system]

Yep, one wonders why to even bother to believe in Deism, if God doesn’t care or influence what happens here. Atheism, Deism, the same difference one way or aother.

As a Deist, I find it insulting to be placed into the same basket as Atheists. Atheism is an affirmative belief that God does not exist. That is completely outside the scope of Deism.

 

[system]

I am someone who constantly teeters between Catholicism, Deism, and Atheism.

The thing is, Deism is not a religion. It’s a belief.

Beliefs of Deists have changed through the years, but the main belief is that some sort of god exists, but he is not a personal god. This seems to make logical sense to me. Looking at a finely tuned universe leads and the question of what caused the big bang leads to the thought that someone or something created the universe. But the thought that this same creator is actively communicating with everybody through vague and contradictory ways seems somewhat silly. So this leads to the belief that a god exists, but not a personal god.

Religion: “The belief in a superhuman controlling power especially in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship.” [The Oxford Enyclopedic English Dictionary] Lord Edward Herbert, regarded by many as the Father of English Deism, was very clear in the 17th Century in concluding that there is one Supreme God, and He ought to be worshipped. This sounds to me like Deists believe in a personal God and not an impersonal force. Deists also believe that God is entitled to obedience and worship. In the days of Herbert, there were no Polydeists as there are today. As the name implies, Polydeists separate themselves from other Deists by believing that there are multiple Supreme Beings who created different facets of the universe. Nevertheless, Polydeists also believe that their gods are entitled to obedience and worship. So, it is incorrect to state that Deism is not a religion.

 

[system]

Deism is a supreme act of disobedience.

How can one acknowledge a Creator but simultaneously reject the notion that the creation had a purpose?

Deists believed themselves to be rationalists and so bowdlerized the Bible (as Thomas Jefferson most famously did) to purge it of that which offended their Enlightenment era sensibilities. There is no difference between this act—a complete rejection of the fundamental nature of God and His love for mankind—and Lucifer’s actions.

After all, true deists reject Christ, don’t they? Why would the Creator take on the cloak of flesh and die for us, invisible hand that is all the deists claim He is?

Deists are theological nihilists. I suspect that had modern science been available to them and had they the true courage of their conviction most deists of the Founding Era would have been atheists today.

That is the logical next step of making your own mind your god.

The statement Deism is a supreme act of disobedience is an indication of an unwillingness to understand or accept the beliefs of others. Would you say the same about Judaism, Islam and Hinduism?

Deists do not reject the notion that the creation had a purpose. Why would God, who we believe to be omniscient, create the universe with no purpose? It is illogical. We humbly believe that the purpose of God’s creation is beyond our comprehension and unnecessary for us to know at this point in our time.

Deism was thriving for more than 100 years prior to Jefferson’s cutting and pasting of the Bible. Jefferson was a Christian Deist. Not all Deists are Christian Deists, and Deism in general is not based on a rejection of Christianity. It is based on rational conclusions about God. Just like every other faith, those conclusions lead to the rejection of faiths that reach different conclusions. For example, Catholics reject the Qur’an as a book written by God. It is impossible for a religion to exist without rejecting other religions in whole or in part. But Deism is not, as you imply, a direct intentional attack on Christianity any more than Christianity is a direct and intentional attack on Judaism.

You see Jefferson’s actions which represent a subset of but not all Deists as “a complete rejection of the fundamental nature of God and His love for mankind” and no different from Lucifer’s actions. You can only say this because you believe the Bible is real. Not everyone does. Saying something like this is imposing your beliefs upon others by insisting that those who do not believe as you do are rejecting God. Would you say the same about Muslims?

As for Lucifer, Deists do not believe Lucifer existed.

 

[system]

There is an International Union of Deists. deism.com/deism_defined.htm At the top of their page, you’ll see what seems to be their motto “God gave us reason, not religion.” It seems a little bizarre, because it seems to me that Deism is a religion too in that it is a prescribed set of beliefs, so this weird movement contradicts itself. But, at least they believe in God, which is a big step.

The International Union of Deists does not speak for all Deists and certainly not for me. The group is divisive and overly and unnecessarily critical of other faiths often blaming them for all of the problems in today’s world. People genuinely interested in learning about Deism must seek more than one resource to truly understand it. Relying solely on what the WUD says to reach conclusions about all Deists is the same as relying only on what the Westboro Baptist Church says to reach conclusions about all Christians.