Link between Deism & Catholicsm

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colm_Cille
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Colm_Cille

Guest
I’m posting this in Philosophy because I believe it applies here, but if a moderator disagrees, please move it to the appropriate section.

In my discussion of philosophy with friends and on the internet, the big question has always been - “is there a God” - to which the response has been yes, and argued from there. As such, I’ve become accustomed to arguing from a Deistic point of view; God as Ultimate causality, God as non-contingent ground for contingency etc. Having read a fair deal of typical arguments on this, it came naturally to argue those points, albeit with a few of my own inventions.

One thing I could not manage however, was to provide a philosophic ground linking the God of the Big Bang and Creation to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Ultimately to the faith we hold as Catholics. I would be grateful if anyone could provide instruction on this, if indeed, such a link has been postulated on? Perhaps we are required to take this matter on faith alone?

In any case, thanks for your attention, and I hope you can assist me.

Míle Buíochas,

Colm Cille.
 
Once you establish the existence of a God that all things are contigent upon and caused by you have proven theism not deism. Deism says that God is just a blind force or distant being that sets everything in motion and then goes away. If you have proven that morality and causality are dependent upon God then God would have to be morally perfect and God would have to be a conscious being because He has to have an intellect in order to will (or cause) something.
 
Colm_Cille said:
I hope you can assist me.

Míle Buíochas,

Colm Cille.
Click to expand...
Hi Colm Cille;

A very interesting question…and an important one too, as I think many people inadvertently take such a ‘deist’ reading of cosmological arguments. A couple of things that may help:

First of all, the First Cause argument is often misunderstood because of what Frederick Copleston called a confusion between ‘in fieri’ and ‘in esse’ causes. Causes in fieri are temporal or sequential causes, like a series of dominoes falling down. One can trace all the falling dominoes back to the first domino. This is how many people mistakenly interpret Aquinas’ cosmological argument. It has the effect of pushing God further and further away from us, by positing him at the beginning of a series and distanced from us by subsequent sequential stages. Thus you end up with your deist view of God.

Aquinas in fact saw no philosophical objection to an infinite temporal sequence (see for example his treatise De Aeternitate Mundo) although he rejected the possibility on theological grounds. But even if the universe were an infinitely staged sequence of cause and events going back in time, God would still be the First Cause. This is because God is cause in esse and not in fieri; in other words, God is the cause of everything by virtue of the fact that all being is contingent on His existence, whether in time or not. Consider, for example, a shadow cast be a tree. The shadow is contingent on the tree and would be even if both tree and shadow existed eternally. An eternal tree would cast an eternally contingent shadow. It’s a rough analogy (all our talk of the First Cause is analogical) but you will see the point he’s trying to make.

Thus, every physical event in the universe, including the Big Bang is just as present to and dependent on God as later events. Thus God is both transcendent and immanent: he is intimately present in every moment of existence.

Finally, I should just add—another key point Aquinas makes—arguments for the existence of God, such as cosmological arguments—are demonstrations of God’s existence, not of his essence as such. Demonstrations show that belief in the existence of God is consistent with reason. Knowing God on a personal level through the person of Jesus Christ is a matter of revelation. Philosophy and theology will have lots to say about revelation, but these will not be drawn from initial demonstrations of God’s existence.

Hope this helps!
 
Thank you both for your Replies.

I seem to have gotten my terms mixed up; it should be, as you say cc42, a question of Theism and Catholicism. Perhaps a moderator could fix that up for me.

I see what you’re saying hicetnunc, thank philosophical arguments are purposed only to show the rational of belief in God, rather than to demonstrate a definite link between the two - Religion and Theism. Thank you for taking the time to answer, you have been very helpful.
 
Colm Cille:

So are you now wondering how you can get from theism to Catholicism?

I would say that once theism has been established then a God who reveals Himself to his creation is justified because a thiestic God would have more than meet moral or personal expectations since He is greater than His creation.

There are only a few monotheistic religions in the world and the ones that there are being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe in the same God. We then have to compare beliefs about revelation. Jews and Muslims don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that He was resurrected so we must provide evidence for those beliefs. With people who are Christians but not Catholics we need to provide scriptural evidence for things like the sacraments and authority of the Pope.
 
cc42 said:
Once you establish the existence of a God that all things are contigent upon and caused by you have proven theism not deism. Deism says that God is just a blind force or distant being that sets everything in motion and then goes away. If you have proven that morality and causality are dependent upon God then God would have to be morally perfect and God would have to be a conscious being because He has to have an intellect in order to will (or cause) something.
Click to expand...
I think the role of a deistic god in this argument isn’t necessarily to say that this god ceased to interact after getting things started. But to say that this god has done enough to at least achieve as much as the deistic god would have conceptually done. Once that agreement is reached the discussion can then continue on whether or not this god, which has at least been active as a deistic one, continues to interact in the universe.
 
Thinkingsapien:

A god that holds things in contingence is a god that continually interacts with the universe. That would not be a deistic god.
 
cc42 said:
Thinkingsapien:

A god that holds things in contingence is a god that continually interacts with the universe. That would not be a deistic god.
Click to expand...
I understand that. However, explanations are usually given in steps so that people can understand them one piece at a time. In this case the first step would be the establishment of the existence of an entity that created the universe and then progressively working your way to you god through some intermediate arguments.

Here is a possible parallel: if a child asked me how the sun makes light I could dive straight into a discussion of stellar nucliosynthesis, or I could give a number of smaller explinations over time. The full explanation will not be understood and sound unparalleled and disconnected from everyday experiences or the Childs understanding.

What the OP is trying to go is similar; first show that a god exists that at least has been as active as a deistic god and then work his way to his god. If you start off trying to argue specific god concept in its entirity you may loose people that will just shrug you off.

I am aware of the differences in the deistic god concept and the theistic god concepts.

Please pardon my mistakes. Sent from my Windows Phone.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
…if a child asked me how the sun makes light I could dive straight into a discussion of stellar nucliosynthesis, or I could give a number of smaller explinations over time. The full explanation will not be understood and sound unparalleled and disconnected from everyday experiences or the Childs understanding.

What the OP is trying to go is similar; first show that a god exists that at least has been as active as a deistic god and then work his way to his god. If you start off trying to argue specific god concept in its entirity you may loose people that will just shrug you off.
Click to expand...
Agreed. With the level of contempt and repulsion many experience towards the mention of the word ‘God’ these days, it would be better to introduce God to them starting the the base rationale behind the concept rather than shoving two millenia of Catholic philosophy and dogma down their throats at the get-go.
 
Colm_Cille said:
I’m posting this in Philosophy because I believe it applies here, but if a moderator disagrees, please move it to the appropriate section.

In my discussion of philosophy with friends and on the internet, the big question has always been - “is there a God” - to which the response has been yes, and argued from there. As such, I’ve become accustomed to arguing from a Deistic point of view; God as Ultimate causality, God as non-contingent ground for contingency etc. Having read a fair deal of typical arguments on this, it came naturally to argue those points, albeit with a few of my own inventions.

One thing I could not manage however, was to provide a philosophic ground linking the God of the Big Bang and Creation to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Ultimately to the faith we hold as Catholics. I would be grateful if anyone could provide instruction on this, if indeed, such a link has been postulated on? Perhaps we are required to take this matter on faith alone?

In any case, thanks for your attention, and I hope you can assist me.

Míle Buíochas,

Colm Cille.
Click to expand...
There couldn’t be two God’s could there? If they can accept the God of the " Big Bang " or the First Unmoved Mover, the First Uncaused Cause, the Final Cause of all things, The Cause of All Being, Unlimited Bing Himself, it shouldn’t be much of a stretch to idendify Him as the God of Abraham who called Himself, " I am."
 
Linusthe2nd said:
There couldn’t be two God’s could there? If they can accept the God of the " Big Bang " or the First Unmoved Mover, the First Uncaused Cause, the Final Cause of all things, The Cause of All Being, Unlimited Bing Himself, it shouldn’t be much of a stretch to idendify Him as the God of Abraham who called Himself, " I am."
Click to expand...
Getting a person to accept that doesn’t necessarily translate into getting the person to accept Catholicism. Keep in mind that the abrahamic religions is. Family of religions. And the big 3 splinter into many subgroups ov various views, beliefs, and holy texts. There are a few dots that need to be connected to get from the god of deism to Yahweh to Jesus.
 
Thinkingsapien: Of coruse you are correct. So do you accept that a personal God exists?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Getting a person to accept that doesn’t necessarily translate into getting the person to accept Catholicism. Keep in mind that the abrahamic religions is. Family of religions. And the big 3 splinter into many subgroups ov various views, beliefs, and holy texts. There are a few dots that need to be connected to get from the god of deism to Yahweh to Jesus.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It seems to be a jump for even most Scholastic Philosophiers. Thomas seemed to think he had accomplished it. And it satisfied me. But I admit I haven’t been able to get anyone to agree with me.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Getting a person to accept that doesn’t necessarily translate into getting the person to accept Catholicism. Keep in mind that the abrahamic religions is. Family of religions. And the big 3 splinter into many subgroups ov various views, beliefs, and holy texts. There are a few dots that need to be connected to get from the god of deism to Yahweh to Jesus.
Click to expand...
That’s not correct.
There is no possible way to connect the God of deism to Yahweh or any other god of theism.
Deism is a completely different category from theism. While accepting deism is a step away from atheism, it isn’t a step in the direction of theism. Deism is a genuine third way.
 
belorg:

Theism and deism are different but that is because deism is an incoherent view and when people hold it it ie because they fail to understand the implications of accepting a creator of the universe and what that philsoophically further requires.
 
cc42 said:
belorg:

Theism and deism are different but that is because deism is an incoherent view and when people hold it it ie because they fail to understand the implications of accepting a creator of the universe and what that philsoophically further requires.
Click to expand...
Deism isn’t incoherent any more than theism is. In fact, it’s much more coherent. e.g. It does not require the absurd notion of a timeless and immutable being becoming temporal and changeable.
 
Colm_Cille said:
I’m posting this in Philosophy because I believe it applies here, but if a moderator disagrees, please move it to the appropriate section.

In my discussion of philosophy with friends and on the internet, the big question has always been - “is there a God” - to which the response has been yes, and argued from there. As such, I’ve become accustomed to arguing from a Deistic point of view; God as Ultimate causality, God as non-contingent ground for contingency etc. Having read a fair deal of typical arguments on this, it came naturally to argue those points, albeit with a few of my own inventions.

One thing I could not manage however, was to provide a philosophic ground linking the God of the Big Bang and Creation to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Ultimately to the faith we hold as Catholics. I would be grateful if anyone could provide instruction on this, if indeed, such a link has been postulated on? Perhaps we are required to take this matter on faith alone?

In any case, thanks for your attention, and I hope you can assist me.

Míle Buíochas,

Colm Cille.
Click to expand...
If you mean to ask, “granted that a powerful, immaterial creator/designer of the universe exists, how do I know that that creator/designer is the Christian God,” then I think one possible answer is not a philosophical connection, but a historical one, specifically, historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus rose from the dead, this seems like an important confirmation of Christian teaching.

On the Resurrection:
  1. Two online articles:
  1. two pop books:
  1. scholarly book
 
cc42 said:
belorg:

Theism and deism are different but that is because deism is an incoherent view and when people hold it it ie because they fail to understand the implications of accepting a creator of the universe and what that philsoophically further requires.
Click to expand...
What about it seems incoherent? And what are these other requirements that one takes on by accepting a minimally interactive god.
 
belorg and thinkingsapien:

I do not think that deism is a coherent position because just like theism it argues for a timeless changeless being, except it also argues that that being must either not be conscious or not be interested in the world or not be powerful enough to interact with the world. All of those are philosophically less simple answers than arguing for a limitless being (meaning limitless in all categories). Deism does not make sense because if the being is the only necessary thing then how could other things possibly be contingent upon it but at the same time it has nothing to do with those things? Just because something involves less power does not make it a better explanation especially considering that explanations are means to explain All facts and not just some.
 
danserr said:
If you mean to ask, “granted that a powerful, immaterial creator/designer of the universe exists, how do I know that that creator/designer is the Christian God,” then I think one possible answer is not a philosophical connection, but a historical one, specifically, historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus rose from the dead, this seems like an important confirmation of Christian teaching.

On the Resurrection:
  1. Two online articles:
  1. two pop books:
  1. scholarly book
Click to expand...
I have had the same sort of thought. Still, not all will make the connection or refuse to make the connection. It is easy for those who have the faith already to make the connection but for those who don’t it is obviously very difficult. We also must keep in mind all the " modern " baggage ( pop and educational) that others have to overcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top