O
- Status
O
oldcelt
Guest
I do not see any point where I was condescending, but if you feel I was, please accept my apology.
I disagree that our lives hold no meaning without a higher being. Perpetuation of the species, development and improvement of civilization and so on are all examples of important function in which most of us participate to one degree or another.
To me, history shows us that what we call morality has been a developing concept, and one that is not universal. Acts that were considered to be perfectly moral in the 16th century, slavery for example are generally viewed as immoral today.Even Jesus changed the moral code of his time when he demonstrated how two of the 10 commandments covered morality very well.
Since Deist view Jesus as human as you or me, this was a simplification that not only demonstrated that morality need not be complicated, but that the human race is capable of
developing its own morality, but considering alterations as we and our civilization develop.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
The bold is subjective, not objective. It operates on the assumption that humanity existing is a good thing. From where did you derive this assumption? Your human instincts. It’s not a fact, and it’s completely dependent on humanity.
The only way to have objective meaning or morality is to have an absolute, transcendent frame of reference. Only a Higher Being can provide this.
O
oldcelt
Guest
It has to be a fact or the question would not even exist, nor would any of the achievements of this highly faulted race. I truly do not see the need of a higher being to arrive at the idea that murder is something to be rejected by society. Things such as that seem to fall under common sense. If they are handed down by God then why the delay in such a profound human issue as slavery.
To me, this looks far more like the development of humanity rather than an edict from God.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Huh? It has to be a fact that the existence of humanity is good because people have asked whether it is, or because we have done good things? That’s a non sequitur. Plus, humanity’s faults greatly exceed our good deeds.
The question is whether murder is objectively wrong, that is, whether it would be wrong independent of humanity and what we thought about it. Without an absolute framework, we cannot determine this.
It’s really our instincts and culture, not common sense. But all three of those are still subjective.
Huh? I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
O
oldcelt
Guest
It just occurred to me, that in this case, you are requiring the impossible. Without the existence of humanity, any of these questions would be moot. Therefore, you have to proceed from the basis that mankind, for whatever reason, exists. From that point you can discuss whether or not divine intervention is necessary. If that is a non-sequitor, then I’ll have to live with that.
Maybe this subject would be better discussed under non-Catholic religions, even though Deism probably doesn’t really qualify as such. I mean, your statement that man’s good deeds are far outweighed by their negatives. True, or not, that is subjective. For example, some view the dropping of the atom bombs as evil, others not.
Even your notion of an absolute framework assumes that these notions of morality came from a divine being and not from mankind. That is subjective because an individuals belief in that being comes in to play.
Maybe this is why I took the absolute minimum number of philosophy courses in college.
When you think about it, we long ago answered the OP, “What exactly is Deism?” I have been quite surprised by the level of interest. Personally, I thought the thread would die a quick death because of the relative lack of doctrine to discuss.
Who’s a thought?
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
You’re severely misunderstanding. Objective means that something is absolute, independent of humanity, not without humanity.
A transcendent Being is necessary for a transcendent framework.
I am arguing that a God is necessary for objective meaning or morality. The fact that different religious beliefs exist is irrelevant.
If you would like to, you can start another thread about this. I’ll show up. Or, if you would prefer me to do it, I will.
O
oldcelt
Guest
It is a curious subject…I’d really like to hear more people’s view. This sounds to be closer to your heart and knowledge, and you would probably have better wording for the initial thread opener. Take it away James, I look forward to it,.
John
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
If it’s OK with you, I’ll wait till the morning. It’s pretty late here, and 'lil James needs his sleep.
Have a blessed night! I’ll see you on the new thread in the morning. :yawn:
O
oldcelt
Guest
I’m definitely with you on that. Sleep well.If it’s OK with you, I’ll wait till the morning. It’s pretty late here, and 'lil James needs his sleep.
Have a blessed night! I’ll see you on the new thread in the morning. :yawn:
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Oh how I love those words “may” and “could.” Too bad their partners, “may not” and “could not” don’t get allowed into the sentence.
What relevance does the article have to a discussion of Deism?
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
1John 4
18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Like deism all forms of atheism are weak for precisely the same reason. There is no compelling evidence in favour of their interpretation of reality. Theism at least provides a rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Neither deism nor atheism can explain why life is valuable, purposeful and meaningful.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
We can assign meaning (purpose) to our words, but only God can assign meaning to our lives. Those who think they are assigning meaning to their lives are only saying what they like or what they don’t like. The hedonist, for example, likes pleasure. But the purpose for which he was born was hardly to indulge himself in pleasures. That pursuit might satisfy any other animal as the purpose for which he exists. But something gnaws at man’s inner being, a hunger for something more significant than food or drink or sex or power or fame. What gnaws at his inner being is a hunger for purpose more lasting, more divine. The meaningfulness of a man’s life can only be measured by the degree to which he satisfies that hunger.
T
tonyrey
Guest
O
oldcelt
Guest
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
But mostly the perfect love of God, without which we all live in fear.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
For the sake of clarity I wanted to highlight that your usage of weak here is not quite the antonym of “strong” as used in my message.
“Strong” as used in my previous message is an indication of one’s response to the God proposition (asserts that there are no Gods). Positive atheist or Hard atheist are synonyms. In the same context a weak/soft/negative atheist is one that is not convinced of the existence of a god but doesn’t assert they don’t exists.
By contrast deist think there is a god. Though they don’t agree with the features that many attribute to that god.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
P
Portofino
Guest
I agree with you, though the alternative is to believe in moral truths existing in the same way that mathematical truths exist. It would then be debatable whether such truths would require a creator God (just as it is a point of debate as to whether it take a creator God to have 1+1=2 or A=A).
But personally, I agree. This has nothing to do with whether or not God intervenes or answers prayers, so Deism is perfectly compatible with belief in an objective morality, as long as that objective morality would be discoverable through reason (and Catholics argue that it is, through natural law, thus would be granting that a Deist could discover that “murder is morally wrong” without the help of revelation).
It is also very important, I think, to point out that the existence of God and of an objective morality does not necessarily entail there is an afterlife. Likewise, to say that the prospect of no afterlife must lead to a despairing worldview is assuming that a particular subjective or emotional reaction to the absence of an afterlife is the only “appropriate” way to feel (how does one prove what constitutes an “appropriate” emotional response or an inappropriate one?).
God could exist; meaning could exist; right and wrong could exist – yet there is no afterlife. Life would thus be replete with meaning and significance, even though this life is the only one that God has seen fit to give us.
This a third way, conforming neither to the beliefs of traditional Christianity (God, objective morality, and afterlife) nor to nihilism (no God, no objective morality, no afterlife). It’s a third way because it says “God ; objective morality ; no afterlife.”
Simply believing in this would refute the notion that, if there is no afterlife, we must believe our lives have no meaning and no significance, and we ought to do nothing but despair. That’s a subjective response, and even traditional Christians would grant that the existence of God and of objective morality is sufficient reason to affirm that the universe is not meaningless, independently of whether or not there is life after death. Frankly, however, even saying “no God, no objective morality, no afterlife” does not demonstrate that the only possible response – or the only response that “makes sense”-- is to despair. That itself would be a subjective viewpoint – one is making a leap between what one affirms to be case, and how one is “supposed to” feel about it. There may be no “how I’m supposed to feel about this” that is applicable. The statement “what’s the point of living” is a statement of opinion, as it is a subjective viewpoint as to what does or does not constitute sufficient motivation for “desiring” to live. Christians may only feel sufficiently motivated by an eternal reward, whereas one of a different constitution will feel sufficiently motivated by a temporal reward. Being “hard to please” – “I can’t be happy unless I live forever” — versus “easy to please” – “this is interesting; this is enjoyable; I’ll take it”–is a matter of temperament.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Then why were a number of the founder’s Deists? Jefferson was weak on slavery, but otherwise he was one of the undeniable leaders. Washington, who is believed by a number os historians to be a Deist and so on.
I have explained several times why I feel that life is valuable Tony…you just don’t like my answers.
- Status