Deism

[StMikey]

Hello ! As a beginning apologist (what true Catholic is not?), I often spend time politely listening to Protestant points of view and hopefully leading them to truth (the Catholic Church). Recently, I met and engaged in an enjoyable debate with a deist. Deism is the belief that God has revealed himself via natural law and reason alone. Denies denies all revealed truths and religions. Aside from faith, what argument can be made that a benign God must reveal himself ? As Catholics (Christians) we believe that Judaism was a revealed religion and that the Old Testament God’s inspired message. What argument can be made to lend credence to the Old Testament and consequently the new Testament ?

Any comments, links or book recomendations would be appreciated !

 

[Hananiah]

Deism violates the philosophical maxim “a nothing will do as well as a something about which nothing can be said.” They believe that God created the universe but they know absolutely nothing about his nature, have no means of communication with him, and he plays absolutely no part in their lives. Why bother calling this mysterious creator a God? One might as well ascribe the creation of the universe to impersonal, physical forces and become an atheist.

 

[Magnanimity]

StMikey:

Hello ! As a beginning apologist (what true Catholic is not?), I often spend time politely listening to Protestant points of view and hopefully leading them to truth (the Catholic Church). Recently, I met and engaged in an enjoyable debate with a deist. Deism is the belief that God has revealed himself via natural law and reason alone. Denies denies all revealed truths and religions. Aside from faith, what argument can be made that a benign God must reveal himself ? As Catholics (Christians) we believe that Judaism was a revealed religion and that the Old Testament God’s inspired message. What argument can be made to lend credence to the Old Testament and consequently the new Testament ?

Any comments, links or book recomendations would be appreciated !

I find the Evangelical Thomist Norman Geisler to be very helpful in this regard. Two books in particular in which he deals explicitly with deism and tries very well to undermine it are these:

1. Christian Apologetics
2. Worlds Apart: A Handbook on Worldviews

 

[georgeaquinas]

Hello,

I would add that an important part of the definition of deism is the idea of God as a “clock maker.” In other words, God created the world, but does not have any involvement in it. This idea became popular during the Enlightenment. It partly arose out of the percieved need to have an empirical basis for all truths.

One way to argue (philosophically speaking, of course!) with a Deist is to ask him to outline the reasons for his belief in God. He should present some sort of argument from the first cause or a variation of the argument from design. This will help lay the framework.

I would suggest that you move onto the moral argument for the existence of God (the fact that we have objective morality leads to a good God). This would open the argument up to a discussion about God’s relationship to His creation.

I hope that this is helpful(?).

As to what books you can read: I would reccomend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or a book on St. Thomas (I have heard that Peter Kreft’s book A Summa of the Summa is good).

Also, a good question to ask your friend is why would an all-knowing and all powerful God not want to reveal himself? It would seem the onus would be on the con position, not the pro.

Have fun!

georgeaquinas

 

[Blackbog]

Deism violates the philosophical maxim “a nothing will do as well as a something about which nothing can be said.” They believe that God created the universe but they know absolutely nothing about his nature, have no means of communication with him, and he plays absolutely no part in their lives. Why bother calling this mysterious creator a God? One might as well ascribe the creation of the universe to impersonal, physical forces and become an atheist.

The deist would argue that the three statements in bold text above are inaccurate, for the following reasons:

First, the deist can know about the nature of god through reason.

Second, many deists communicate with the divine in the same way many Christians do. Many others, for example pandeists, believe that communion with nature is the same or roughly equivalent to communion with god.

Third, unlike atheist materialists, deists must live concerning themselves with the will of god, though they vary on how they interpret this.

Regarding your conclusion, they do not ascribe the creation of the universe to impersonal, creative forces because they arrive at the same conclusion as Catholics do that a Creator God must be personal.

They just don’t accept revealed authority, because they have no means of verifying that authority.