How To Deal With This Old Canard

[kantus12]

Right, so, after (perhaps ill-advisedly) browsing the “Religion” pages on Quora, I see at least one person saying “Okay, fine, maybe science/physical observation can’t observe God. But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.”

My first instinct is that this sets up a false dichotomy between Deism and Theistic Personalism, but what do you guys think?

Eoin

EDIT: I apologise if this breaches the ban on explicit discussion of the A-Word. I honestly just want to know your opinions on this.

 

[GEddie]

Right, so, after (perhaps ill-advisedly) browsing the “Religion” pages on Quora, I see at least one person saying “Okay, fine, maybe science/physical observation can’t observe God. But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.”

My first instinct is that this sets up a false dichotomy between Deism and Theistic Personalism, but what do you guys think?

Eoin

EDIT: I apologise if this breaches the ban on explicit discussion of the A-Word. I honestly just want to know your opinions on this.

It looks okay, rules wise, but next time, you might want to take it to the Catholic FAQ section.

ICXC NIKA

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Kantus.

I’m not sure how it follows that “a God who cares about human welfare” must be part of the physical universe. It seems like a non sequitur to me.

Nevertheless, you could play that card if you wanted to. After all, Christianity is based on God’s actions in the observable world.

 

[tonyrey]

Right, so, after (perhaps ill-advisedly) browsing the “Religion” pages on Quora, I see at least one person saying “Okay, fine, maybe science/physical observation can’t observe God. But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.”

My first instinct is that this sets up a false dichotomy between Deism and Theistic Personalism, but what do you guys think?

Eoin

EDIT: I apologise if this breaches the ban on explicit discussion of the A-Word. I honestly just want to know your opinions on this.

Divine intervention does not imply mutation but dominion and compassion.

 

[surritter]

It seems like this is the part of their statement to pick apart:

“…a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe…”

That is a false leap of logic. Why do intellectual faculties like “caring” or “interfering” automatically mean something “physical”?

Ask where in a physical person’s being are things like love, caring, etc. Those things can’t be put under a microscope! Yes, they tend to be associated with beings who are physically part of the universe and can be measured, but philosophically that doesn’t mean that things such as love are only limited to physical things.

 

[balto]

Hi Kantus.

I’m not sure how it follows that “a God who cares about human welfare” must be part of the physical universe. It seems like a non sequitur to me.

Nevertheless, you could play that card if you wanted to. After all, Christianity is based on God’s actions in the observable world.

I agree. I think that you are right kantus in that it is setting up a false dichotomy between deism and theistic personalism. It all stems from thinking that the created universe can in principle exist apart from God, which it cannot. In the classical/medieval tradition, the only reason why anything exists is because it is held in being via the continuous, eternal, creative act of God. So if your interlocutor is concerned that God’s effects cannot be felt, there would be nothing to sense or explain at all if not for God because we, and the entirety of creation along with us, would not exist without His sustaining creative act. We cannot help but feel and experience God’s effects.

At least they are willing to maybe consider that scientism is false. That’s a huge step in the right direction .

 

[grannymh]

My first instinct is that this sets up a false dichotomy between Deism and Theistic Personalism, but what do you guys think?

After my friend Google did a quick search of Theistic Personalism, my first thought is that I should not be posting.

However, I have been playing with the Deductive Method of reasoning to see what kind of descriptions of God would be possible. Maybe a deist would be interested in them. This cranky (feminine of snarky) granny cannot guarantee that my ideas are in the neighborhood of reality. But then, in my humble opinion, not every philosopher lives in that neighborhood.

The bump in the road is the last part of this sentence.
But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs,
then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.
If it is possible that something can exist in the physical universe without the necessity of being observed by humans, could that lead to the possibility of a spiritual being existing independently, that is, without human observation?

In the physical world, there are a lot of interactions due to laws of nature. An interesting interaction is that of a tree hit by lightning and falling to the ground and there is no one there to hear the crash. Would there be a sound if there were no human ears to hear it?

But, sound is not the first interaction; lightning hitting the tree is the first interaction. What if there were no human eyes to see the interaction of lightning and tree, which resulted in the tree falling to the ground? What is happening here is that we can see effects but not necessarily the cause. Those who believe that God is greater than the space and time limits of His created universe will spot the possibility that God’s presence is not governed by the laws of the physical universe and the observation of human eyes.

The ideal conclusion to the above is the realization that there are instances in the physical universe where the cause of interaction (tree falling to the ground) is independent of observation. In fact, once the effects or results from the initial interaction take place, we will never be able to observe the original cause in the original action.

Keeping the above in mind, a possible suggestion would be to agree that 1. God as Creator exists. Deists should be able to accept that.

Next would be 2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

This follows 1. because God is Creator and we are creatures; therefore, it follows that God as Creator interacts with humans. Naturally, this 2nd statement implies as truth that “creating” anything is an interaction. Maybe a long drawn out interaction or a brief bang. Deists should be able to accept 2. because the “how” of creation is not specified. We can even posit that creating something from nothing is an interaction because there has to be some kind of interaction to sustain the “something”. We do exist!

At this point, we need to clarify that God’s power to create is infinite; otherwise He would not be God. Also, God, being a transcendent spirit, is not restricted or limited by His material/physical creation. Not being restricted or limited includes the concept that His existence is independent of human observation. We do not wake God up in the morning and put Him to bed in the evening. A deist should be able to agree that God is not dependent on His creation.

Starting with the first true statements

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

and adding true statements about God’s omnipotence and the fact that in nature not every cause for an effect or result is dependent on human observation for its existence. (lighting, tree falling, on ground result) we can arrive at a third true statement.
3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.

Note: this true statement 3. deliberately omits how and why God interacts with humans. By sticking to the interaction per se, it is demonstrated that Deism is not the only banana in the bunch. Because I am not familiar with the nitty-gritty of Theistic Personalism, I cannot say if statement 3. justifies that philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

It seems like this is the part of their statement to pick apart:

“…a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe…”

That is a false leap of logic. Why do intellectual faculties like “caring” or “interfering” automatically mean something “physical”?

Ask where in a physical person’s being are things like love, caring, etc. Those things can’t be put under a microscope! Yes, they tend to be associated with beings who are physically part of the universe and can be measured, but philosophically that doesn’t mean that things such as love are only limited to physical things.

Irrefutable!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I see at least one person saying “Okay, fine, maybe science/physical observation can’t observe God. But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.”

The Church teaches that God is part of the physical universe in the person of Jesus Christ and in the daily reception of the Eucharist at Mass.

 

[empther]

“Okay, fine, maybe science/physical observation can’t observe God. But I insist that that commits you to deism, and that if you want to talk about a God who cares about what we do and/or interferes with our affairs, then you must be talking about something that is a part of the physical universe, and can be observed.”

Agreed that God can’t be scientifically observed,
but we can demonstrate him by his effects,
and this is what Aquinas does in the five ways.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Question 2. The existence of God

1. Is the proposition “God exists” self-evident?
2. Is it demonstrable?
3. Does God exist?

Well, fine, but where does that leave us?
Is God a deist God, one who creates the world but otherwise has no personal involvement in it from then on?
Does he lack personality?

No. From the very fact that he creates the world he must be good.

Question 6. The goodness of God

Does goodness belong to God?

1. Is God the supreme good?
2. Is He alone essentially good?
3. Are all things good by the divine goodness?

From Article 1:

newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm#article1

I answer that, To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good “as by Whom all things subsist.”

( my usual brilliant comments )
An agent can only make something that has some likeness to it. An oak tree can only make acorns, not watermelons.
The creature has some likeness to God.
The creature’s perfection has to be this likeness to God by participation.
The creature’s perfection means that likeness to God is good or bad.
But the creature can only want good for itself because it is desirable.
Therefore, God must be good, or the likeness to God that the creature finds in himself would be evil and undesirable which is absurd!

 

[grannymh]

Agreed that God can’t be scientifically observed,
but we can demonstrate him by his effects,
and this is what Aquinas does in the five ways.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Question 2. The existence of God

1. Is the proposition “God exists” self-evident?
2. Is it demonstrable?
3. Does God exist?

God exists – then the next step is to describe God as Creator.

God being Creator leads to His creation and one could specify the human creation. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

Is God a deist God, one who creates the world but otherwise has no personal involvement in it from then on?

Because matter needs the spiritual soul as “form” of the body in order to become a living person, God is personally involved at conception because He immediately creates the spiritual soul. (CCC, 364-365) The nature of a human is designed so that “man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to Him.” (CCC, 1730) Here a person seeks and accomplishes a relationship with God. On the other side, God calls each person “to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.” (CCC, 356) Together, these truths form the ultimate involvement by God with humans which is the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

 

[oldcelt]

God exists – then the next step is to describe God as Creator.

God being Creator leads to His creation and one could specify the human creation. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

Because matter needs the spiritual soul as “form” of the body in order to become a living person, God is personally involved at conception because He immediately creates the spiritual soul. (CCC, 364-365) The nature of a human is designed so that “man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to Him.” (CCC, 1730) Here a person seeks and accomplishes a relationship with God. On the other side, God calls each person “to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.” (CCC, 356) Together, these truths form the ultimate involvement by God with humans which is the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

Many Deists, myself included, do not believe that God has anything to do with human creation. He is merely the instituter of creation, the first force, etc.

 

[St_Francis]

It always surprises me that people think the Creator of the Universe is somehow restricted from acting in the universe He created because He is not material, as this “old canard” does.

 

[empther]

Many Deists, myself included, do not believe that God has anything to do with human creation. He is merely the instituter of creation, the first force, etc.

If a Deist God created the universe with no purpose,
it would be a chaos.
Nothing would be identifiable except masses of formless matter.
Or, the universe would simply collapse in on itself.
Or, the universe would expand so thinly dispersed that no stars and planets would form.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Many Deists, myself included, do not believe that God has anything to do with human creation. He is merely the instituter of creation, the first force, etc.

So, in other words, there is a God but he goes around creating meaningless universes?

How is that working for you?

What do you think of a father who institutes pregnancy in a woman then walks away?

Makes a lot of sense to you?

 

[oldcelt]

So, in other words, there is a God but he goes around creating meaningless universes?

How is that working for you?

What do you think of a father who institutes pregnancy in a woman then walks away?

Makes a lot of sense to you?

You are giving God human sensibilities that He (for lack of an easier term) may or may not have. This is your belief based on your observations…mine is different, based on my observations.

A universe, a planet, a life, does not need attention and control of a deity to have meaning and purpose in my view. So, it is working out just fine for me. So far as a human father who impregnates a woman and walks away, they are among the lowest IMHO.

 

[oldcelt]

If a Deist God created the universe with no purpose,
it would be a chaos.
Nothing would be identifiable except masses of formless matter.
Or, the universe would simply collapse in on itself.
Or, the universe would expand so thinly dispersed that no stars and planets would form.

You offer four alternatives. Which is it and what is there to support that?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A universe, a planet, a life, does not need attention and control of a deity to have meaning and purpose in my view. IMHO.

How did you get inside the mind of God to determine that he had no purpose in creating the universe?

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
If a Deist God created the universe with no purpose,
it would be a chaos.
Nothing would be identifiable except masses of formless matter.
Or, the universe would simply collapse in on itself.
Or, the universe would expand so thinly dispersed that no stars and planets would form.

You offer four alternatives. Which is it and what is there to support that?

1. For many years astronomers wondered whether the universe’s expansion would slow down and make it collapse back to a point from its own gravity,
   or continue expanding forever.
   The belief is now that it will continue expanding, but it was a close call. There’s a very fine line between an expanding and collapsing universe. You have to have just the right amount of matter to have an expanding universe that isn’t so thinly dispersed we never get stars and planets. We beat the odds.
2. Actually, the amount of visible matter in the universe is too little, if that’s all there is. It would have been too thinly dispersed to form galaxies and stars. But there is also dark matter, again just enough to gather together the hydrogen gas into galaxies and stars. Too much dark matter and gravity would have collapsed the galaxies. We beat the odds again.
3. So you have an unknown number of subatomic particles, at least a few hundred of them, which makes protons, electrons and neutrons, and atoms, ninety-two of them, and of these about a dozen are needed for life, including carbon which forms endless chains for keeping everything together,
   not to forget you need a planetary environment with the right proportions and right amounts of these critical elements, which is very rare as the other planets in our own solar demonstrate,

**and all this happened by chance? ** :bigyikes: :extrahappy:

 

[Gorgias]

Many Deists, myself included, do not believe that God has anything to do with human creation. He is merely the instituter of creation, the first force, etc.

Yet, the ‘false dichotomy’ that the OP references hurts your case. An “instituter of creation” does not have “[nothing] to do with human creation” – he has instituted it! Precisely by the act of instituting it, a deistic god has entangled himself with creation, and therefore, by the (flawed) logic of the OP’s interlocutor, is now ‘in’ the physical realm!

The deists’ proposition that there are no longer any physical interactions with God doesn’t mean that there cannot be evidence of God-creation interaction, but only that it is likely very difficult to find…

(My own response to the OP’s interlocutor? I would assert that, as empther points out, there should be evidence of the effects of God’s interaction in space-time. A person who wants to demonstrate that a null result implies the lack of existence of God would necessarily be required to develop a hypothesis that can reasonably be expected to detect such interactions. Without such a hypothesis, the null result that is obtained does not prove the case. )