Thoughtful response to deist view?

[stevendmo]

I have a family member – a thoughtful person, good mind, plenty of respect for science and scientific inquiry – who has recently learned about the deist view of a higher power and finds it intellectually attractive. Says it makes more sense to him, in some respects, than the Christian perspective of a God who allows free choice but is supposedly intimately involved in human choices (e.g., the influence of the Holy Spirit on a person’s conscience, etc.).

I know enough American history, and theology, to have a basic grasp on the deist perspective. But I’m interested in compelling arguments in favor of the Judaic-Christian-Muslim view of God as one who is seriously interested in (invested in) human affairs rather than simply the clock-winder one finds in deism.

I’m not looking for something to clobber my relative with. I respect him far too much to take that approach. But I would appreciate thoughts / questions / suggestions that might help facilitate a deeper discussion of this. Thanks in advance for any ideas, good books you might recommend for me to read, etc.

 

[reggieM]

Regarding free-will, it’s not just the influence of the Holy Spirit in decisions, but any kind of free decision at all is not possible.
The deist god is deterministic.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I have a family member – a thoughtful person, good mind, plenty of respect for science and scientific inquiry – who has recently learned about the deist view of a higher power and finds it intellectually attractive. Says it makes more sense to him, in some respects, than the Christian perspective of a God who allows free choice but is supposedly intimately involved in human choices (e.g., the influence of the Holy Spirit on a person’s conscience, etc.).

I know enough American history, and theology, to have a basic grasp on the deist perspective. But I’m interested in compelling arguments in favor of the Judaic-Christian-Muslim view of God as one who is seriously interested in (invested in) human affairs rather than simply the clock-winder one finds in deism.

I’m not looking for something to clobber my relative with. I respect him far too much to take that approach. But I would appreciate thoughts / questions / suggestions that might help facilitate a deeper discussion of this. Thanks in advance for any ideas, good books you might recommend for me to read, etc.

Deism does not make any sense to me. There is just no logic involved. How anyone could say that it is intellectually attractive…I’m not sure, maybe they haven’t seen much.

Logic alone can refute deism. Man’s awareness of God was given to us by God, whether on accident or on purpose doesn’t matter, thus it is an active participation/intervention on God’s behalf.

Anyway, another reason someone might favor deism is because it offers an out for any responsibilities toward their own participation with God that has already been revealed. It makes people the sole arbiter of their own morality…autonomy. Ironically, a deist would say they do not take deism as a license to act immorally - I agree with that…but the thing is, how is it that they know how to not act immorally? It’s because God has revealed to us how to live morally…without that revelation, how does a deist know? The deist conveniently forgets the basis for our societies.

As for compelling arguments - How is it compelling to move backward in an understanding of God? Deism was no doubt around many thousands of years ago as well. But God’s participation in the lives of His people has brought us beyond deism to a greater understanding of our relationship with Him. This understanding has grown over many thousands of years. To throw it out in favor of deism makes absolutely no sense. It just seems like a backdoor way of denying the existence of God.

Deism makes man more intelligent then God. We are aware and try to interact with Him, but He does not interact with us, or is not aware of us? That isn’t intellectual at all. It is essentially denying God His superior role. Maybe the argument of denying God His superior role would be refuted by a deist, but I see it as being the end result of having a viewpoint of a lack of participation between God and His earthly people.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I have a family member – a thoughtful person, good mind, plenty of respect for science and scientific inquiry – who has recently learned about the deist view of a higher power and finds it intellectually attractive. Says it makes more sense to him, in some respects, than the Christian perspective of a God who allows free choice but is supposedly intimately involved in human choices (e.g., the influence of the Holy Spirit on a person’s conscience, etc.).

I know enough American history, and theology, to have a basic grasp on the deist perspective. But I’m interested in compelling arguments in favor of the Judaic-Christian-Muslim view of God as one who is seriously interested in (invested in) human affairs rather than simply the clock-winder one finds in deism.

I’m not looking for something to clobber my relative with. I respect him far too much to take that approach. But I would appreciate thoughts / questions / suggestions that might help facilitate a deeper discussion of this. Thanks in advance for any ideas, good books you might recommend for me to read, etc.

I see absolutely no point in deism. Why believe in a deity that is disinterested human affairs? What use is such a God in my life? One may as well be an agnostic or atheist; it would make no difference.

 

[drac16]

We need a God that interacts with His creation. That’s the only way one can be saved. Man can’t make something up and pass it off as wisdom. You can’t mix up a bunch of Lego pieces in a bag, shake it up, and then pull out a helicopter. Man can’t find his way to God by himself.

 

[mackbrislawn]

We need a God that interacts with His creation. That’s the only way one can be saved. Man can’t make something up and pass it off as wisdom. You can’t mix up a bunch of Lego pieces in a bag, shake it up, and then pull out a helicopter. Man can’t find his way to God by himself.

How true. We need a God that interacts with His creation. Because, even if there were a deist God, what difference would it make? None.

 

[Lucretius]

who has recently learned about the deist view of a higher power and finds it intellectually attractive.

You should introduce him to Thomism, like, for example, through Dr. Edward Feser’s Aquinas. Then, I would recommend studying Aristotle with an open mind, in particular Books I and I of * Physics*, focusing on the necessity of act and potency, the four causes, how nature, art, and chance are all sources of existence, and how nature acts for an end, all of which is compatible and necessary to make sense of the discoveries of modern science. Then move on to the relevant questions in St. Thomas’ Summa Theologiae.

Finally, I would read St. Augustine’s On the Spirit and the Letter, as well as James Chestek take on it, which largely inspires my summary of the Christian understand of man, free will, and grace below: thomism.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/moral-commandments-vs-the-heart/

Says it makes more sense to him, in some respects, than the Christian perspective of a God who allows free choice but is supposedly intimately involved in human choices (e.g., the influence of the Holy Spirit on a person’s conscience, etc.).

For St. Thomas, man’s freedom comes from the fact that he is self-reflective or “rational.” Other animals have thoughts, emotions, behaviors, instinct, etc., like man, but they don’t reflect on them, discerning whether they are true and good, or false and wrong, unlike man. Thus, they don’t make systems of science, mathematics, religion, art, etc. This is why man is considered “higher” than all the other animals.

This is also why we hold man to be responsible for his actions in a way that other animals are not, we “know better.” No one thinks it makes sense to put a bear on trial. This is what we mean by choice or “free will:” that man, because of his loftier consciousness, can freely judge himself, either bringing himself in order, or bringing himself into sin. Man is the animal aware of the moral law.

The revelation of God adds on to this and completes the meaning of what it means to be a rational animal, teaching us that the aim of human life is ultimately to bring our inner life: our thoughts, feelings, will, etc., towards God, so much so that we ultimately end up sharing in God’s very inner life, knowing God like He knows Himself, and loving God similarly to how He loves Himself. This is what is meant when we say “love your God with all of your mind, your heart, your soul, and your strength.”

God’s help is necessary to do this perfectly and perpetually, because our hearts are in conflict and resist following the moral law and ultimately His own Will. A little introspection shows this to be true: we see a multitude of moral commands that make us moan and condemn us. This is because moral commands are extristic, they are in a sense imposed onto us. But yet, we know that these commands are good and lead to our happiness, that of others, and that of society! Uggh! I do not do what I want to do, but yet I do what I hate! I know what I should do, but I can’t make myself do it! Ahhhghhhhhhhhhh!

If only there was someone who could mold our inner thoughts, feelings, and will to follow the moral law from the inside, instead of merely imposing it externally by command, fear, and physical force? Someone who could, say, write the law onto our hearts?

This is where the grace of the Holy Spirit comes in.

Christi pax.

 

[Marie5890]

Faith in God is a gift from God.

Don’t blame her if she has not yet received this gift of grace

 

[SalamKhan]

What I have said elsewhere:

The intellect must first understand the definition of God before it could recognise the doctrine of God as revealed to mankind through whatever means.

The judgement of the intellect is related to three things; necessary, impossible, and possible.

That which is necessary, the mind cannot conceive its non-existence.

That which is impossible, the mind cannot conceive its existence.

That which is possible, the mind can equally conceive its existence and non-existence.

If something has come into existence after previously not existing, but had the possibility of not coming into existence, this is called contingency. The contingent nature of the universe is proof for the existence of a cause. The contingency of the universe can be proven by the fact that everything in it changes, and any change cannot be necessary, the contingency of the universe can also be proven by the fact that we are currently here at the present moment, for an eternal and beginningless universe would mean it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present moment, which is impossible and evidently not the case.

The universe could have easily not existed, just as easily as it came into existence. Imagine a balance with two scales in which the existence of the universe is weighed on one side, and the non existence of the universe weighed on the other side; both would weigh the same. However, the fact that the universe came into existence shows that there must have been something which applied pressure on one side for the existence of the universe to outweigh the non-existence of the universe. The source of this cause must also be necessary, for a contingent source leads to an infinite regress of contingent causes, which shares the same problem of a beginningless and eternal universe as mentioned previously. This necessary source must also be without beginning and without end, and must be dissimilar to all contingent things. This same entity must be attributed with life, knowledge, power and will; for without these, the universe would not come into existence, and it is impossible for this entity to be attributed with death, ignorance, incapability and compulsion.

This same entity must also be one, for if one god could bring the universe into existence without the need of the other gods, then the others are not necessary, but if the god is in need of the others, then that god is incapable of bringing the universe into existence and not necessary, something necessary cannot be in need otherwise by definition it cannot be necessary, and something necessary must be needed otherwise by definition it is not necessary; so either one is necessary or none are necessary, which is impossible and thus a multiplicity of necessary beings or polytheism, is impossible.

So we established that the necessary being must have the attributes of existence and oneness, and the necessary being must also have the attributes of self subsistence, pre-eternality, endurance, dissimilarity to contingent things, life, knowledge, power, will, etc.

The fact that we exist, is enough to disprove deism, for Allah did not need us, nor does He ever need us, for it is impossible for Him to have any need, but yet He still created us and He is still sustaining us and creating our every action, for it is impossible for anything to occur without His will. I recommend reading the works of the Classical Asha`ri theologians, and if possible, the works of the Classical Maturidi theologians (Maturidi Aqeedah would be more appealing to Catholics but English translations are hard to come by).

 

[reggieM]

The fact that we exist, is enough to disprove deism, for Allah did not need us, nor does He ever need us, for it is impossible for Him to have any need, but yet He still created us and He is still sustaining us and creating our every action, for it is impossible for anything to occur without His will.

There are quite a lot of Catholic theological works that explain this same thing about God.

I recommend reading the works of the Classical Asha`ri theologians, and if possible, the works of the Classical Maturidi theologians (Maturidi Aqeedah would be more appealing to Catholics but English translations are hard to come by).

What benefit would we gain there that we cannot get from Catholic theology?

 

[SalamKhan]

There are quite a lot of Catholic theological works that explain this same thing about God.

What benefit would we gain there that we cannot get from Catholic theology?

Both the Maturidi and Asha`ri schools, successfully solve the ‘problem of evil’.

Catholic theology also espouses the doctrine of the Trinity, an intellectual impossibility. Both Asha`ri and Maturidi schools maintain that God is above human understanding, but the Trinity is against human understanding; that’s the difference.

Read all of this post.

 

[Peter_J]

The fact that we exist, is enough to disprove deism,

Yeah, I for one would be interested to ask a Deist why God created us.

 

[SalamKhan]

Yeah, I for one would be interested to ask a Deist why God created us.

I would not use that wording, since it is impossible to attribute Allah with need, the question would be invalid due to it implying that Allah had a motive for creating His creation. I would instead ask whether anything that exists or anything that comes into existence, could occur without the will of Allah. If the answer is yes, then anything which occurs outside the will of Allah would have to be either equal to or greater than Allah, which would make Allah incapable of willing the existence of anything, and thus nothing would come into existence; and we clearly see that is not the case. If the answer is no, then accepting that everything occurs within the will of Allah is an abandonment of the deist view that God does not act after His creation of the universe.

 

[Peter_J]

I would not use that wording, since it is impossible to attribute Allah with need, the question would be invalid due to it implying that Allah had a motive for creating His creation. I would instead ask whether anything that exists or anything that comes into existence, could occur without the will of Allah.
…
If the answer is no, then accepting that everything occurs within the will of Allah is an abandonment of the deist view that God does not act after His creation of the universe.

Abridged.

Sorry, I don’t see how that’s an abandonment of the deist view.

 

[SalamKhan]

Abridged.

Sorry, I don’t see how that’s an abandonment of the deist view.

The deists believe that God created the universe, and no more than that, they do not believe that actions related to the universe can be attributed to God after its initial creation; ruling out the possibility of Divine Revelation. Creation, is something which comes into existence after non-existence, and this applies to every event in the universe, therefore the act of God’s creating is constant, and the universe and everything in it are in a constant state of creation. This disproves the view of the deists that actions related to the universe cannot be attributed to God after its initial creation.

 

[reggieM]

I would not use that wording, since it is impossible to attribute Allah with need, the question would be invalid due to it implying that Allah had a motive for creating His creation. I would instead ask whether anything that exists or anything that comes into existence, could occur without the will of Allah. If the answer is yes, then anything which occurs outside the will of Allah would have to be either equal to or greater than Allah, which would make Allah incapable of willing the existence of anything, and thus nothing would come into existence; and we clearly see that is not the case. If the answer is no, then accepting that everything occurs within the will of Allah is an abandonment of the deist view that God does not act after His creation of the universe.

From the Catholic view we would reject the idea that God wills a person to sin, but that God only wills the good.
A god that wills evil would be less perfect than a God who wills only good.

 

[SalamKhan]

From the Catholic view we would reject the idea that God wills a person to sin, but that God only wills the good.
A god that wills evil would be less perfect than a God who wills only good.

Once again, for something to occur without the will of Allah, would have to be equal to or greater than Allah. Catholic theology cannot solve the ‘problem of evil’, and instead espouses dualism; the ancient philosophy that good and evil are both equally and eternally conflicting forces. You are using deductive analogy from empirical knowledge to assert that for Allah to will evil would attribute evil to His entity; when in fact, Allah does not will evil that He may acquire it for His entity, for He is not in need of anything, but He wills evil for His creatures to acquire for themselves.

 

[reggieM]

Catholic theology cannot solve the ‘problem of evil’, and instead espouses dualism; the ancient philosophy that good and evil are both equally and eternally conflicting forces.

Not true. But if you want to reference some Catholic theology to support your point I’ll be glad to look at it.

You are using deductive analogy from empirical knowledge to assert that for Allah to will evil would attribute evil to His entity; when in fact, Allah does not will evil that He may acquire it for His entity, for He is not in need of anything, but He wills evil for His creatures to acquire for themselves.

Whatever Allah wills must come from his entity. If it comes from somewhere else, then there is something greater or equal to Allah’s entity, Allah wills evil, therefore that imperfection comes from His entity. A greater God would be one that is perfect and does not will evil.

 

[SalamKhan]

Not true. But if you want to reference some Catholic theology to support your point I’ll be glad to look at it.

Whatever Allah wills must come from his entity. If it comes from somewhere else, then there is something greater or equal to Allah’s entity, Allah wills evil, therefore that imperfection comes from His entity. A greater God would be one that is perfect and does not will evil.

1. What is evil?
2. Does it have a beginning?

Will is an attribute (not a state) of Allah’s entity, and the attributes of Allah are distinct (but not separate) from His entity, rather than identical to His entity. The existence of evil is from the effect of His will, much like the existence of the universe is from the effect of His will. Your reaosning would lead one to believe that the universe comes from Allah’s entity (emanation, rather than creation ex nihilo).

 

[reggieM]

1. What is evil?

In short, evil is sin against God.

1. Does it have a beginning?

The sin of Adam and Eve.

Will is an attribute (not a state) of Allah’s entity, and the attributes of Allah are distinct (but not separate) from His entity, rather than identical to His entity.

If the attributes are not separate from His entity then they are His entity. Unless you are saying that Allah’s entity is composed of distinct parts. If so, then a God that does not rely on attributes which are distinct from His entity is not as perfect as a God who is completely united in all his attributes.

The existence of evil is from the effect of His will, much like the existence of the universe is from the effect of His will. Your reaosning would lead one to believe that the universe comes from Allah’s entity (emanation, rather than creation ex nihilo).

I don’t think I’m making that distinction. To will something is different than to have it emanate. If evil is an effect of Allah’s will, then Allah wills what is sinful and therefore would contradict any perfection his being would have.

In the Catholic view, God does not will evil. He is the perfection of all good and wills only what is good.