Exactly what is Deism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To regard ourselves as the product of previous events implies that our decisions are not made by us. They are not based on who we are but what we are. According to materialists we are no more than links in a chain
Don’t materialists believe physical causality applies to all human activity?
In your scheme of things persons don’t count because persons don’t exist! They are legal fictions and nothing more than atomic particles. There is no such thing as “you” or “I”. The mind is merely brain activity and every single event is determined by things because everything consists of things! Materialists can’t have it both ways…Do we lose our identity when we make a decision? There is a difference between changing and causing change. Not to intervene is a sign of impotence, ignorance or indifference, all of which are defects incompatible with divinity.
Again, you fail to see my point.

You have ignored every one of my statements, belorg. Do you reject them, accept them or are you undecided? 🙂
If not to intervene is the result of not being able to change oneself, then it is only a sign of impotence if not being able to change oneself is a sign of impotence, which, according to Thomism, it is not.
You have again evaded the question. Do we **lose **our identity when we make decisions?
Materialism has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
Is whether we are composed solely of atomic particles is completely irrelevant to the way we behave?
No, I am not. But deism is far more coherent than theism. Not coherent enough, for my taste, though.
Deism is incoherent in its arbitrary dilution of divine power for no reason whatsoever. To create the universe is hardly a sign of impotence!
 
It’s not a fear of death, but the joy of life. The meaning of my life is a “lifelong journey” :D, it unfolds daily.
And then you die forever. And that thought haunts the atheist forever. Not a joyful thought?
 
And then you die forever. And that thought haunts the atheist forever.
Not after death, Charlie. 😉 There are no atheists in the next world - even from the atheist’s point of view!
Not a joyful thought?
I should imagine that if you have nothing to look forward to you become apathetic - unless you love some one, of course. In that case it is certainly not “a consummation devoutly to be wish’d” - although Hamlet was referring to this life.
 
Not after death, Charlie. 😉 There are no atheists in the next world - even from the atheist’s point of view!
More specifically, a strong atheist might say there is no next world (so statements on who are in the next world would from the perspective of a strong atheist fail on their premise). Other types of atheist may consider propositions about the next world to be be statements that cannot yet be evaluated for truth value.
 
And then you die forever. And that thought haunts the atheist forever. Not a joyful thought?
I’m not an atheist but the ones that I’ve spoken to subscribe to the Epicurean view -
Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.
Once death comes, there is no “you” to fear it. It would seem to make life more precious because life isn’t simply something to be tolerated to get to something better (heaven.) Life is it’s own reward.
 
I’m not an atheist but the ones that I’ve spoken to subscribe to the Epicurean view -

Once death comes, there is no “you” to fear it. It would seem to make life more precious because life isn’t simply something to be tolerated to get to something better (heaven.) Life is it’s own reward.
On the contrary, I would say that view would make life meaningless because then life, being certain to cease to exist, ultimately has no value, as it always ceases.
 
Once death comes, there is no “you” to fear it. It would seem to make life more precious because life isn’t simply something to be tolerated to get to something better (heaven.) Life is it’s own reward.
That there is no life beyond death is not a fact. So if there is life beyond death, and you have not prepared for it, death is something very much to be feared.

The atheist is gambling, but never on a sure thing. So that’s a foolish bet when you can lose all in the single moment of dying … after which you will be singing a different song than “Life is its own reward.”

Roscoe, what are you if not an atheist? Have you decided yet? :confused:
 
That there is no life beyond death is not a fact. So if there is life beyond death, and you have not prepared for it, death is something very much to be feared.

The atheist is gambling, but never on a sure thing. So that’s a foolish bet when you can lose all in the single moment of dying … after which you will be singing a different song than “Life is its own reward.”

Roscoe, what are you if not an atheist? Have you decided yet? :confused:
You are offering Pascal’s wager. It’s a bet, a gambler’s logic. You don’t have all the information, no one does. 🤷

You are saying we are given the gift of a life but we should spend it in fear of an unknown. Doesn’t sound appealing? What else you got?

The Coming of the Kingdom of God.

20 Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, “The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed,
21 and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.”

Luke 10

36 Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”
37 He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

I grew up Catholic, I am plodding along in my own way. 🙂
 
You are offering Pascal’s wager. It’s a bet, a gambler’s logic. You don’t have all the information, no one does. 🤷

You are saying we are given the gift of a life but we should spend it in fear of an unknown. Doesn’t sound appealing? What else you got?
What else I have got is not fear of the unknown, but joyful anticipation of the unknown. I’m sorry you gave that up with the gambler’s logic that there is no unknown to fear or joyfully anticipate.
 
…This has nothing to do with materialism.

Again, you fail to see my point. If not to intervene is the result of not being able to change oneself, then it is only a sign of impotence if not being able to change oneself is a sign of impotence, which, according to Thomism, it is not. Materialism has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
?
As a neuroscientist by training, I was always aware of the separation of mind from brain on the bases of my many clinical experiences doing brain surgery on tumor patients, and removing large sections of diseased brain, afterward noting little or no change in mental function. I can remember one patient in particular with a large, malignant tumor of the right frontal lobe of the brain, very anterior. I decided to do a radical resection and amputated the brain well posteriorly, just in front of the premotor cortex, perhaps 5+ inches backward from the frontal pole. He lost essentially a total of 1/4 of his entire brain matter. The next morning after surgery, I walked into his hospital room, and found him reading the newspaper, with full mental functions, intact intellect, and fluent communications on bedside testing. Nothing had happened to his mind. It was functioning normally despite the fact that 25% or more of his brain was removed. I have also seen this in others with severe frontal brain injuries where gyri were contused and hemorrhagic, rendered nonfunctional, yet with excellent mentation on discharge. Therefore, there is much clinical evidence to support your conclusion. Interestingly, however, in the problem of diffuse head injury or brainstem injury, where there is total loss of consciousness and coma, it appears that the reason for this is that it is neurologically well established that for consciousness to be expressed through the brain as a soul-manifestation, the neuro-electrical circuits of the brainstem and hemispheres must be intact for the expression of it.
xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/commentsnf.html
 
What else I have got is not fear of the unknown, but joyful anticipation of the unknown. I’m sorry you gave that up with the gambler’s logic that there is no unknown to fear or joyfully anticipate.
It’s unknown either way 🤷

I’m not saying there isn’t an afterlife, just that no one knows what it is. I do know this life, I am trying to appreciate the gifts that I’ve been given. The rest will take care of itself. Tons better than living a life of fear. As the old saw goes: it’s the journey not the destination.
 
As the old saw goes: it’s the journey not the destination.
I’m probably on the other end of the journey than you are, so for me it is now the destination that really matters, and the journey is how to get there without claiming ignorance.

As the old saw goes in American courtrooms: “Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.”

I am hoping, in spite of all my ignorance, that I am on the right side of the Lord.
 
I’m probably on the other end of the journey than you are, so for me it is now the destination that really matters, and the journey is how to get there without claiming ignorance.

As the old saw goes in American courtrooms: “Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.”

I am hoping, in spite of all my ignorance, that I am on the right side of the Lord.
If God is truly just and merciful and you’ve done your best, what’s to worry about. No need to cower and wait for the icy hands of death. Walk in the sunshine.

I’m sure you’ve seen this Old Twilight Zone. I think it’s applicable.

cbs.com/shows/the_twilight_zone/video/659911538/the-hunt
 
Don’t materialists believe physical causality applies to all human activity?
Probably, but I have never claimed I was a materialist, and even if I were one, that isn’t relevant to this thread;
You have ignored every one of my statements, belorg. Do you reject them, accept them or are you undecided? 🙂
This is not relevant to this discussion, that’s why I ignored them. I prefer to stay on topic.
You have again evaded the question. Do we **lose **our identity when we make decisions?
I don’t think so, but, again, this is not relevant.
Is whether we are composed solely of atomic particles is completely irrelevant to the way we behave?
Yes.
Deism is incoherent in its arbitrary dilution of divine power for no reason whatsoever. To create the universe is hardly a sign of impotence!
I have explained the reasons why a deist God cannot interfere. If you fail to understand them, that’s your problem, not mine.
 
If God is truly just and merciful and you’ve done your best, what’s to worry about. No need to cower and wait for the icy hands of death. Walk in the sunshine.
That’s too soft an approach to life and too cavalier an approach to death.

You don’t get to decide what to worry about. God does. And he has made it abundantly clear that you have a choice. You can wait for the icy hand of death, or you can hope that beyond death there is a warm hand and a warm heart to greet you.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33
 
Perhaps Roscoe is speaking of subjective meaning, whereas Charlemagne is talking about objective meaning.

Without God, subjective meaning is possible, but objective meaning is not.
Obviously, as a Deist I disagree with your definition of objective. Not surprisingly, so do all the dictionaries I am able to find. Here’s Webster’s for an example: Unbiased; unprejudiced; fair; uninfluenced by personal feelings or personal interests; considering only the facts of a situation unrelated to the observer; - of judgments, opinions, evaluations, conclusions, reasoning processes.
webster-dictionary.org/definition/Objective

So objective meaning is quite possible without the intervention of a superior being of any sort.
 
Interesting article that may have some relevance in a discussion of Deism.

Physicist says he’s solved the big mystery — how life came from matter — and he may be right
The origin of life is basically inevitable from a mathematical standpoint, according to one physicist, and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”
Jeremy England, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he’s developed a mathematical formula to explain his theory that matter necessarily acquires the key attributes for life if placed under certain conditions.
rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/22/physicist-says-hes-solved-the-big-mystery-how-life-came-from-matter-and-he-may-be-right/

Naturally, this is not without controversy from many quarters, but if proved, it could shake up a great many people in a number of fields of study.
 
Obviously, as a Deist I disagree with your definition of objective. Not surprisingly, so do all the dictionaries I am able to find. Here’s Webster’s for an example: Unbiased; unprejudiced; fair; uninfluenced by personal feelings or personal interests; considering only the facts of a situation unrelated to the observer; - of judgments, opinions, evaluations, conclusions, reasoning processes.
webster-dictionary.org/definition/Objective

So objective meaning is quite possible without the intervention of a superior being of any sort.
That’s precisely the type of objective I’m talking about. Objective is defined as something that exists factually, independent of the observer. As RationalWiki puts it, “Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person’s subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like ‘Murder is wrong’ can be as objectively true as “1 + 1 = 2.” Most of the time, the alleged source is God…”

Without a Higher Being, there is no meaning to our lives that exists factually, independent of humanity.

Also, a condescending tone is completely uncalled for and is a detriment to a rational discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top