Doesn't the world make more sense from a deist perspective?

[DetectiveNiko]

From Thomas Aquinas and many other great philosophers (even Aristotle to some extent), we can determine that something infinite, something we call God exists.
But lately I have been thinking, doesn’t the world make a lot more sense from a deistic perspective?

1. There is no problem of evil since God doesn’t really care for us, and just created us instead.

2.A lot of things in Christianity make more sense as a social construct for example :
a) We don’t need to justify polygamy in the Bible, it makes more sense if it was a cultural norm at the time
b) We observe that different cultures have different moral standards. If a God really imposed morality on us, wouldn’t we all have similar moral thoughts?
c) Regarding the controversial murders in the Bible we can just say it was written in the Bible to justify their war acts.
3. Don’t we believe that God wants all to be saved ? Doesn’t that also imply that he would also want for everyone to know the truth ? Why not show himself to other cultures not just the Jewish people then (Yeah I get that they were the chosen ones, but why have chosen ones but it makes more sense if that was just an ethnocentric view of the Jews )
4. I realise this might be a more emotional question but : If God uses evil for the greater good, what about epidemics ? I can see how sickness and death can be used to teach a lesson or for a greater good, but collective sickness does not generally lead that way.
5. I have seen someone say this on the forum before but, don’t we have a super low expectation of what a miracle is ? Like most miracles today are cures of sicknesses that had a low chance of succeeding ( but its still possible that they succeeded ) and there are very few miracles that we could actually define as such ( Fatima and maybe a couple of saint ones only to come to mind ) How can we know if a religious experience isn’t just us defining it as such

Any thoughts ? I would love to hear some opinions about this subject. Thanks !

 

[po18guy]

So, don’t think so much? Are your thoughts superior to or more enlightened than those of Church doctors Saints Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo?

Let’s think this over some more.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

Definitely not, but that does not mean they couldn’t have had an error in their beliefs. Just because someone is right does not mean they are right in everything. Besides, I don’t remember Aquinas ever tackling some of these topics, though I can’t say for the likes of Augustine.
Besides, that’s mostly an argument from authority fallacy.

 

[po18guy]

So, are you inventing your own world view? Sounds to me like you are having a crisis of faith. A lot of that going around lately. I would ask only that you bear in mind that the doubts we have, the realities which we may prefer to that which exists, do not change reality or revealed truth.

There are 7 billion arguments against faith and only one in favor.

Jesus Christ.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

You could say that I am having a crisis of faith yes, it been going on for the last couple of months and I am getting tired of it.
I can’t really cast away doubts when in my mind there is more against than for the “truth”

There are 7 billion arguments against faith and only one in favor.

Jesus Christ.

I wouldn’t really put it in those terms but yeah thats the problem I am talking about.

 

[Cruciferi]

Deism | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

 

[fhansen]

From Thomas Aquinas and many other great philosophers (even Aristotle to some extent), we can determine that something infinite, something we call God exists.
But lately I have been thinking, doesn’t the world make a lot more sense from a deistic perspective?

1. There is no problem of evil since God doesn’t really care for us, and just created us instead.

2.A lot of things in Christianity make more sense as a social construct for example :
a) We don’t need to justify polygamy in the Bible, it makes more sense if it was a cultural norm at the time
b) We observe that different cultures have different moral standards. If a God really imposed morality on us, wouldn’t we all have similar moral thoughts?
c) Regarding the controversial murders in the Bible we can just say it was written in the Bible to justify their war acts.
3. Don’t we believe that God wants all to be saved ? Doesn’t that also imply that he would also want for everyone to know the truth ? Why not show himself to other cultures not just the Jewish people then (Yeah I get that they were the chosen ones, but why have chosen ones but it makes more sense if that was just an ethnocentric view of the Jews )
4. I realise this might be a more emotional question but : If God uses evil for the greater good, what about epidemics ? I can see how sickness and death can be used to teach a lesson or for a greater good, but collective sickness does not generally lead that way.
5. I have seen someone say this on the forum before but, don’t we have a super low expectation of what a miracle is ? Like most miracles today are cures of sicknesses that had a low chance of succeeding ( but its still possible that they succeeded ) and there are very few miracles that we could actually define as such ( Fatima and maybe a couple of saint ones only to come to mind ) How can we know if a religious experience isn’t just us defining it as such

Any thoughts ? I would love to hear some opinions about this subject. Thanks !

Deism certainly makes things easier, but in the end that god would be of little use for religious purposes. That god has no effect on our moral standards; relativism would be the rule of the day. This is true simply because God would not be love, and therefore we’d have no goal, meaning or purpose, no higher level of perfection to strive for, no real reason to exist at all. This statement by St Teresa of Avila is one of great profundity, itself learned through much striving: “It’s love alone that gives worth to all things.” Unless the Creator is the source of that love, then love is rendered a “sweet old-fashioned emotion”, with no ultimate goodness or goal intrinsic to itself. Nothing has purpose without God; no virtue has any real model behind or supporting it. Nobility, fortitude, courage, wisdom, dignity, humility, integrity: all just words.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

That seems to only talk about the history of deism, and as it seems deism is a bit broader than I thought, what I meant by deism is the belief that God exsists but he really does not care for humanity and after creation just “removed” himself from humanity.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

That’s exactly why I am having problems and asking this question. I would not like to think that, but it does seem like there is no actual objective morality. I used to be against moral relativism, but lately, I have been thinking and it seems that altruism seems to fit the world pretty nicely when you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint and in general today, where people have very different views of what is moral and what not.

 

[fhansen]

That’s exactly why I am having problems and asking this question. I would not like to think that, but it does seem like there is no actual objective morality. I used to be against moral relativism, but lately, I have been thinking and it seems that altruism seems to fit the world pretty nicely when you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint and in general today, where people have very different views of what is moral and what not.

A problem with using evolution as the mechanism behind any particular human behavior and especially for our morality is that we can use it to support any and all possibilities, depending on what we speculate might be best for human survival. We can build cases that say rape and murder and war are in some way beneficial for the species (they exist after all), or that altruism is better, explaining its existence. Obviously all moral behavior has a cause and, if its decided that evolution is that cause then we can easily enough find a way to make it fit the mold. And how does altruism connect different views? Altruism suggests a morality that always wills the good of humankind, whereas many moral codes might support only seeking the good of ones own, or of oneself, at the expense of others.

 

[Thom18]

Just because we still have crime, doesn’t mean we believe that the police don’t care about us. It only means that criminals don’t care about us.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

whereas many moral codes might support only seeking the good of ones own, or of oneself, at the expense of others

There are a few instances where this is true but they are an anomaly.

Obviously all moral behavior has a cause and, if its decided that evolution is that cause then we can easily enough find a way to make it fit the mold

I would say just cause it does not sound pleasant does not immediately mean it’s not true.
This study pretty much explains every part of human morality in the view of pyschology and evolution and how it can (and most likely) exist under an atheistic worldview. (Though I would say atheism is still a big stretch for me to believe ) : Did Morality Evolve? | Psychology Today Canada

 

[fhansen]

There are a few instances where this is true but they are an anomaly.

But going by individual behavior as well as that of whole countries, greed, racism, religious intolerance, nationalism, etc are alive and well. I don’t know if it can be said that we’ve improved as a species, or that altruism necessarily benefits us anyway. Maybe genocide is beneficial for humanity from an evolutionary standpoint: population control and all? Just saying; it could certainly be argued.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

As I have said before, I hoped for it not to be true, but just because something does not sound nice, especially the possibility of murder becoming subjectively immoral, does not mean its untrue. Most of the evidence seems to point to evolutionary morality which is kinda depressing but I came here to seek out the truth.

 

[abucs]

1. Evil exists because God cares for us enough to have free will and to learn goodness from the consequences of our actions…

2.That’s a big subject.:

1. a) Men died in battle, struggled to provide enough for themselves and had lower life expectancies. Perhaps it made sense then to have more than 1 wife.

b) God doesn’t impose morality on us. He suggests and lets us decide. This is also a glass half full scenario.

c) We can say that anyway. God taking an active role with humanity doesn’t invalidate the view.

1. No it doesn’t imply that. Goodness is something to be chosen for its own sake, not because there is no other choice.
2. Epidemics are part of the Creation with the interplay of life organisms and practice. I don’t see it as God using evil. Small life forms are also good for us. In the same way volcanoes make the earth fertile but if you get too close you can be killed.
3. It is a matter of philosophy based on how we see the world. As we grow older we spend time having different philosophies and judge which ones make sense from experience.

 

[po18guy]

It might make sense for those who desire no relationship above and beyond the pathos which this world supplies. It makes sense to non-inquiring minds. It makes sense to those whose minds are not polluted by cognition. It makes sense to troubled loners. The list could go on and on.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

You have been a great help, but I think I have to think about this still a bit.
Still not sure, if we say he is all good, there are epidemics. Since the general view I got from theologians regarding the view of evil is that God uses it for a greater good, or allows it in order for us to learn a lesson, and I don’t see either of those happening on an epidemic level of sickness.

It is a matter of philosophy based on how we see the world

But there have been a lot of cases where people with religious experiences were just mentally ill, so how are we supposed to know if its our brain screwing up or something else (Maybe I phrased the question wrong, but hopefully now its easier to understand)

God doesn’t impose morality on us

And I am also pretty sure the Church teaches God gave us conscience, and conscience is mean’t to be his voice in us, but then the problem arises when people have different consciences. That would sound like multiple Gods which would be a contradiction.

But you gave me some food for thought, which I appreciate.

 

[fhansen]

How about another theory: The light entered the world in a huge way two millennia ago, fostering a new way of looking at fellow man: instead of competing with and vanquishing ones enemy, we’re now to love him. Setting a whole new standard, spurring waves of charitable volunteer work and donations of wealth and time, promoting selflessness, the building of hospitals, orphanages, educational system/universities, strides in learning and science and the pursuit of excellence in general, offering light and hope and order in an otherwise dark and dismal and angry and confused and ultimately meaningless and temporary world/life.

People are not mere biobots, compelled by the latest evolutionary forces to change in one way or another. We change as a matter of choice, compelled , if anything, by the greater good, the higher ideal, that we perceive and then reason upon. What if Christianity actually laid the foundation for such ideals, deep down, the ideals that now engender movements for such things as civil rights, feminism, humanism, etc, even if the horse may end up biting the hand that fed it at times? If anything we are evolving, with the help of grace, towards a higher state, but only in the mental/spiritual sense rather than the natural one, or at least some are doing so while others may remain in as dark a state as humankind as ever been. Wheat and tares, light and darkness, our challenge, our choice. Just some thoughts.

 

[exnihilo]

I used to be against moral relativism, but lately, I have been thinking and it seems that altruism seems to fit the world pretty nicely when you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint and in general today, where people have very different views of what is moral and what not.

Not to stir up the pot too much, and I know it will, but firstly I think evolution is philosophically untenable. Without going into it the principle of sufficient cause makes it impossible. You can’t give what you don’t have. A purely physical universe can’t create immaterial beings like man. Also, DNA is information. You can’t create information through blind chance.

Addressing altruism, if I didn’t believe in God I wouldn’t be altruistic. It makes no sense. I’d be as selfish as I could be. If other people wish to be fools, in such a world, let them.

Of course my experience is that being selfish leads to not just bad feelings but bad mental health. It seems like going over to the ‘dark side’. This suggests morality and morality can’t be from evolution. If it is morality it must be an immaterial reality. Otherwise it is just bad feelings like a stomach ache except it doesn’t point to an actual physical problem.

 

[exnihilo]

Still not sure, if we say he is all good, there are epidemics. Since the general view I got from theologians regarding the view of evil is that God uses it for a greater good, or allows it in order for us to learn a lesson, and I don’t see either of those happening on an epidemic level of sickness.

We are all going to die whether God exists or not. You don’t doubt that, right? Is death worse than illness? I think so. If we want to use evil as the reason there is no God then we don’t need epidemic. We just need death. But the Christian Faith explains both life and death. It gives meaning and purpose to both. Atheism or deism is nihilism.

But there have been a lot of cases where people with religious experiences were just mentally ill, so how are we supposed to know if its our brain screwing up or something else (Maybe I phrased the question wrong, but hopefully now its easier to understand)

You know who is most mentally ill? People who cling too hard to reason. People who question even their own mind. Have you ever read Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton? If not I recommend it highly. Particularly the chapter on the madman. It helps me because I can go down the rabbit hole of the madman myself.