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

  • Thread starter Thread starter DetectiveNiko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I guess I am just going to have to have faith with this one. Thank you for your response.
 
exnihilo said:
If we want to use evil as the reason there is no God then we don’t need epidemic. We just need death
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say so since we believe in life after death, so death is just a transition stage, while seemingly unfair illnesses that make ones life worse but don’t improve their life in any way seems different.

And thank you for the book recommendation, I will check it out sometime.
 
We believe in life after death. But deism wouldn’t necessarily. I’d say life is unfair through and through. Some people are richer than others. Some have better families. You could just as easily ask why we have any differences in life as all differences are unfair. I agree some particular tragedies can seem or feel unfair because they are. But all of life is unfair really. It might be that in our easy living culture we just can’t see the good that comes from struggle.

You’re welcome regarding the book.
 
This may be easier in some senses, but untenable in others.
Just because it’s easier to explain evil, doesn’t mean really anything, so long as the other views still explain it. And Catholicism in particular has a very interesting view of suffering, including epidemics.
We are to put our sufferings with Christ, working for the salvation of souls. The world is full of suffering, and advancement comes with much suffering, and without including even Divine Judgement, we can see the idea of suffering and “evil” fairly easily. We believe our own God suffered and died for our sakes, after all.

Deism doesn’t make much sense. Like, a God just created us for no real reason, not even as entertainment?
 
Well what I was trying to say is that we would have to justify inside of Christianity pointless deaths that didn’t bring anything good. But I have come to realize this is just an assumption so I really can’t know if its right or wrong. I guess what @Kei said kinda makes sense with this whole topic is that we are here on earth not just to lead good lives, or pleasant lives even, but to learn and prepare for heaven which ultimately needs sacrifice, whether we like it or not.
 
Well most things seem to be answered, although I am still confused about all these social construct thoughts I am having, and why we don’t have collective morality. Thanks everyone, the past few days I have been loosing my faith but I am slowly coming back and I am grateful.
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear it!
One thing I don’t understand is sometimes when people try to deny objective morality by saying we don’t share a moral compass. There are plainly pan cultural morals shared all around the world. For instance, bans against murder or fornication or stealing etc. seems to be shared across the world.

Of course, the more nuanced or detailed calls to holiness may not be known where Christ is not known, but this is to be expected.
I think we all from time to time get to thinking all manner of things, especially when we read materials that take atheism or pantheism or whatever for granted. It can be disheartening, but we can have trust in that we rely not on our thoughts, but on the teachings of the Church.
 
Last edited:
Well I didn’t mean mean to deny objective morality, just that what purpose is there for not having a collective moraltiy in the eyes of God ? I mean its more of a philosophical question to think about but I am mostly perplexed by this article Did Morality Evolve? | Psychology Today Canada
Have always been scared of psychology in the future undermining belief in God and I still am a bit, but I gotta have faith.
 
But that’s just it, we do have a fairly collective morality, despite what naturalistic blogs named after an atheist philosopher who became mad says.

I mean, broadly speaking. The minutia is not all the same, but in general we have a similar code of conduct across the continents.
 
I didn’t read the whole article but I did read this:
Traditional moral systems tell us we should not act to satisfy our own selfish needs, but instead should act altruistically (that is, we should act to satisfy the selfish needs of other people).
Click to expand...
This isn’t true. Altruism is something that we get from Christianity. In our culture we take for granted that people would be helpful to each other. But that is because we live in a post Christian society where vestiges of the Faith remain. In non Christian cultures both modern and historic people were very selfish. At best they may be slightly altruistic towards their own clan.

But most importantly morality is either something metaphysical or it is nothing. There either really are metaphysical obligations or there are not. Anything ‘evolutionary’ would be at best an ethic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top