Exactly what is Deism?

[oldcelt]

This is the million dollar question. If the Deist believes God created the universe, he must believe that he created it for a reason. The moral order is among all the things of Creation. For what purpose was the moral order created? Or does the Deist believe that the moral order is simply an unintended consequence of Creation?

Many Deists, myself included, believe that God started creation…the final result was chance and we can only guess at his reason since he is a very quiet Deity.

The moral order is the results of millennia of human interaction throughout the world. Not just in a few square miles in the Middle East.

 

[belorg]

There are many Existentialist and Kantian atheists, but then, that’s impossible, by your logic, because neither Kierkegaard nor Kant were atheists.

Your question

Huh? Even though he followed Aristotelean methodology, and drew almost all of his ideas from Aristotle, he wasn’t an Aristotelean?

was meant as a reply to my statement that Aquinas was wrong.

So, yes, technically, Aquinas can still be considered an Aristotelean even though he was wrong about some aspects of Aristoteleanism. But in the sense that you seem to suggest in your answer, no he was not an Aristotelean, I would rather say he was a Thomist.

 

[belorg]

If Aristotle was a Deist, that would be because he did not have access to Revelations.

Philosophers should not rely on revelation.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Your question

was meant as a reply to my statement that Aquinas was wrong.

So, yes, technically, Aquinas can still be considered an Aristotelean even though he was wrong about some aspects of Aristoteleanism. But in the sense that you seem to suggest in your answer, no he was not an Aristotelean, I would rather say he was a Thomist.

Was Jean-Paul Sartre “wrong about some aspects” of Existentialism because he was an atheist?

 

[belorg]

Was Jean-Paul Sartre “wrong about some aspects” of Existentialism because he was an atheist?

Does existentialism entail theism?

If by Aristotelenaism, we mean everything about Aristotle’s philosophy, then Thomas was not a full-blown Aristotelean. And **if **Aristotle was completely right about his metaphysics, which entail deism, then obviously Thomas was wrong about at least some aspects.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Philosophers should not rely on revelation.

Being a philosopher does not preclude believing that God has revealed himself to us.

The philosopher is supposed to use reason, and reason does not tell us that if God exists, he should not reveal himself to us.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Does existentialism entail theism?

If, as you argue, it is necessary to hold to the theology of the founder of a philosophy in order to “truly” hold said philosophy, then, resoundingly, yes. Kierkegaard spent almost half of his time applying Existentialism to Christianity. Yet, Sartre, one of the most lauded existentialists of the modern age, was an atheist.

If by Aristotelenaism, we mean everything about Aristotle’s philosophy, then Thomas was not a full-blown Aristotelean.

No, we mean Aristotle’s philosophy. Aristotle’s philosophy and his theology are separate schools of thought. That’s why Aristotle’s philosophy is Aristoteleanism and vague belief in a monotheistic deity is Deism.

And **if **Aristotle was completely right about his metaphysics, which entail deism, then obviously Thomas was wrong about at least some aspects.

No, Aristotle’s metaphysics entail a monotheistic God, nothing more, nothing less. They don’t necessarily entail belief in a “Clockmaker God” or any other Deistic understanding of God.

 

[belorg]

Being a philosopher does not preclude believing that God has revealed himself to us.

That is true, but that does not mean a philosopher should rely on revelation.

The philosopher is supposed to use reason, and reason does not tell us that if God exists, he should not reveal himself to us.

A philosopher is supposed to use reason, not revelation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A philosopher is supposed to use reason, not revelation.

But if revelation is reasonable, why shouldn’t he?

Atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But why does it makes sense that God would create us and then have nothing more to do with us?

Does it seem to you that God put things in motion for a reason? If so, what does that reason (plan) seem to be?

This is the million dollar question. If the Deist believes God created the universe, he must believe that he created it for a reason.

Even if there is assumed to be a reason/motivation for a deistic god if we are talking about a non-invasive god-concept then there’s not going to be much information to go on for inferring that reason. Though we’ve talked before that even humans have created systems for which their only interaction after the system gets started is observation. In the previous conversation (thread: Why do you Believe in God) in which I mentioned this John Conway’s “Game of Life” was used as an example, but it isn’t the only instance of such a system. While it has no practical application it’s something interesting to those that create it and let it run. The thought of an entity not invasively interacting with a system that he or she has created is not unheard of.

Deist god-concepts don’t necessarily see humans or life on earth as a part of the motivation for creation of the universe. Whether we are part of the motivation or a side effect is something that is considered unknown.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…]

I get the impression you are very fond of Cosmos since you’ve shared quotes from it before. Thought you might be interested in knowing that some one has been producing an updated version of it that I understand to be released this year. If you have interest: cosmosontv.com/

 

[Charlemagne_III]

While it has no practical application it’s something interesting to those that create it and let it run. The thought of an entity not invasively interacting with a system that he or she has created is not unheard of.

Deist god-concepts don’t necessarily see humans or life on earth as a part of the motivation for creation of the universe. Whether we are part of the motivation or a side effect is something that is considered unknown.

There are many different systems of creation by men. Virtually all systems of human creation exist for a reason, and the humans who created them take a regular interest in the regulating and unfolding of the system, and are not averse to tinkering with the system when tinkering seems appropriate.

Why would a Deist Creator differ from a human creator? Why would a Deist Creator necessarily be more like John Conway than the Creator in the Old Testament and most other creators we know?

 

[grannymh]

If we accept that God is intervening in human affairs, there are contradictions that are difficult or perhaps impossible to explain.

A couple that I can think of off the top of my head, that I assume appeal to Deists:

• If the world requires constant intervention by God to set things right, it would seem to be an imperfect creation.
• If the Lord is all just, any acts of mercy on his part would seem to undermine that justice.

Instead of God intervening in human affairs, it seems to me that the more accurate description is that God interacts with humans. At least that is how I read Catholicism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There are many different systems of creation by men. Virtually all systems of human creation exist for a reason

Yes, there is usually a reason/motivation behind human actions.

and the humans who created them take a regular interest in the regulating and unfolding of the system, and are not averse to tinkering with the system when tinkering seems appropriate.

Some of the interest in the systems that I’m mentioning (and some others that I’m thinking about) is that self regulation is an emerging feature of some forms of these systems. Once they start running some seemingly run in perpetuity (I say “seemingly” because they never get an opportunity to do so; the computer gets shut off at some time or another) unless they happen to have received an initial configuration that converges on a zero/dead state. Regulation from external agents isn’t needed and is usually undesirable since the interest is in watching the system evolve without intervention. Many have some forms of emerging complexity that is also of interest to watch. So these may be systems in a different category than what you are thinking about.

In such systems there may be multiple reasons for their creation. But there being a reason doesn’t imply invasive interaction.

Why would a Deist Creator necessarily be more like John Conway than the Creator in the Old Testament and most other creators we know?

The god-concept presented in the old testament regularly intervened, interacted and communicated with his creations. He is said to have engaged in actions including communication through dreams, killing some, nudging up the fertility of another, hardening some one’s heart, adjusting local atmospheric conditions, so on. It was an invasive god-concept. John Conway’s creation was a zero player game. After it was set up it would run without any (name removed by moderator)ut from external agents. Beyond ending the world (killing the program, turning off the computer, …) there’s no invasiveness. Only observation. And the observation isn’t necessarily constant. Some one may start up a system and go off to do something else coming back later to see if the configuration happen to have been a stable one (in which case not everything would have died out by then).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The god-concept presented in the old testament regularly intervened, interacted and communicated with his creations. He is said to have engaged in actions including communication through dreams, killing some, nudging up the fertility of another, hardening some one’s heart, adjusting local atmospheric conditions, so on. It was an invasive god-concept. John Conway’s creation was a zero player game. After it was set up it would run without any (name removed by moderator)ut from external agents. Beyond ending the world (killing the program, turning off the computer, …) there’s no invasiveness. Only observation. And the observation isn’t necessarily constant. Some one may start up a system and go off to do something else coming back later to see if the configuration happen to have been a stable one (in which case not everything would have died out by then).

Several times you have used the word “invasive” to describe God’s interaction with the world. "Invasive seems to be a word with various kinds of negative connotations. Why wouldn’t “intervention” be the more appropriate word? We intervene with our computers to nudge them this way and that as our will commands. We don’t “invade” our computers.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why wouldn’t “intervention” be the more appropriate word?

Okay, that’s fine by me.

 

[belorg]

If, as you argue, it is necessary to hold to the theology of the founder of a philosophy in order to “truly” hold said philosophy, then, resoundingly, yes. Kierkegaard spent almost half of his time applying Existentialism to Christianity. Yet, Sartre, one of the most lauded existentialists of the modern age, was an atheist.

It’s only necessary if the theology is part of the philosopy of the founder.

No, we mean Aristotle’s philosophy. Aristotle’s philosophy and his theology are separate schools of thought. That’s why Aristotle’s philosophy is Aristoteleanism and vague belief in a monotheistic deity is Deism.

No, Aristotle’s metaphysics entail a monotheistic God, nothing more, nothing less. They don’t necessarily entail belief in a “Clockmaker God” or any other Deistic understanding of God.

Aristotle’s metaphysics, properly understood, entail a deist God. Un unmoved mover is a deist God because intervening is a change, and immutable beings cannot change.

 

[belorg]

But if revelation is reasonable, why shouldn’t he?

Whether revelation is reasonable or not has to be decided using reason, so you make my point here: in philosophy reason must always prevail.

 

[oldcelt]

Deism simplifies the Revelation issue…there is none. No attention for people who feign revelation on their television show, no miraculous appearances of anybody (How do we supposedly know what they look like), no saves from tornadoes, none of that.

It not only saves a great deal of confusion and doubt, it saves a lot of time.Seriously, why would a divine being chose any one particular person to enlighten the human race? With infinite power, there are dozens of more efficient means.

 

[tonyrey]

Deism simplifies the Revelation issue…there is none. No attention for people who feign revelation on their television show, no miraculous appearances of anybody (How do we supposedly know what they look like), no saves from tornadoes, none of that.

It not only saves a great deal of confusion and doubt, it saves a lot of time.Seriously, why would a divine being chose any one particular person to enlighten the human race? With infinite power, there are dozens of more efficient means.

The outstanding feature of deism seems to be its negativity and rejection of Christianity!