Deism v Theism

[Blues Man]

I'm putting this in philosophy because it isn't about religion and the dogma that religion necessitates.

It's more a fundamental position.

Deism is the belief that there is a god or creator of the universe and its system of natural laws that govern its existence but that this creator does not actively control the universe or any of the life within.

Theism is grounded in the belief that the creator actively participates in and manipulates his creation on a regular basis all the way down to the minutiae of the lives of all life forms within the universe.

If there is a creator, and I don't know if there is or not, I'm more inclined to think he/she/it falls into the behavior pattern of the deist's idea of what creator does.

I just cannot imagine that this all powerful being really cares if people pray for good weather or for a good performance in a sporting event or whether a person lives or dies on the operating table and that this all powerful creator would stop what it is doing to intervene.

 

[Oddball]

Who says the creator doesn't say; "let's sit back and see what happens next"?

 

[badger2]

I'm putting this in philosophy because it isn't about religion and the dogma that religion necessitates.

It's more a fundamental position.

Deism is the belief that there is a god or creator of the universe and its system of natural laws that govern its existence but that this creator does not actively control the universe or any of the life within.

Theism is grounded in the belief that the creator actively participates in and manipulates his creation on a regular basis all the way down to the minutiae of the lives of all life forms within the universe.

If there is a creator, and I don't know if there is or not, I'm more inclined to think he/she/it falls into the behavior pattern of the deist's idea of what creator does.

I just cannot imagine that this all powerful being really cares if people pray for good weather or for a good performance in a sporting event or whether a person lives or dies on the operating table and that this all powerful creator would stop what it is doing to intervene.

Both deism and theism get destroyed by Derrida's treatment of the spacing of time. You're in the right forum.

 

[badger2]

Who says the creator doesn't say; "let's sit back and see what happens next"?

An all powerful creator would already know what's going to happen. Why was Adam relegated to name the animals if G already knew their names?

 

[Oddball]

An all powerful creator would already know what's going to happen. Why was Adam relegated to name the animals if G already knew their names?

That's presuming a lot.

 

[Blues Man]

Who says the creator doesn't say; "let's sit back and see what happens next"?

If there is a creator that's probably what it does.

I'm sure we have provided countless hours of entertainment.

 

[Oddball]

If there is a creator that's probably what it does.

I'm sure we have provided countless hours of entertainment.

More like countless eons.

 

[badger2]

That's presuming a lot.

Most believers will go that far. Adam naming the animals means that either god actually did not know their names, or either was fucking with Adam as his blackmail-worthy puppet.

 

[Oddball]

Most believers will go that far. Adam naming the animals means that either god actually did not know their names, or either was fucking with Adam as his blackmail-worthy puppet.

I'm not "most believers"...And I prefer to allow them to speak for themselves.

 

[badger2]

Derrida's treatment of the spacing of time correctly deals with the arrogant presumptions of the theologian.

'Kant shows that reason become trapped in irresolvable contradictions when it proceeds from the (logical [italics]) possibility of thinking a metaphysical notion such as God to the inference of its (real [it.]) existence in the world. All metaphysical theses (e.g., that there must be a simple substance, an uncaused cause, or a necessary being that is the ground of all contingent beings) can be countered by an antithesis that demonstrates that these are incompatible with the constitution of time and space. The antinomies are thus structured around the conflict between a thesis that asserts that there must be an indivisible instance and an antithesis that asserts that there cannot be an indivisible instance since everything is divided by time and space.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism, p. 22)

 

[badger2]

I'm not "most believers"...And I prefer to allow them to speak for themselves.

You should, then, have a thread responsibility to cite any of these others with which to bolster your argument about presumptions.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm putting this in philosophy because it isn't about religion and the dogma that religion necessitates.

It's more a fundamental position.

Deism is the belief that there is a god or creator of the universe and its system of natural laws that govern its existence but that this creator does not actively control the universe or any of the life within.

Theism is grounded in the belief that the creator actively participates in and manipulates his creation on a regular basis all the way down to the minutiae of the lives of all life forms within the universe.

If there is a creator, and I don't know if there is or not, I'm more inclined to think he/she/it falls into the behavior pattern of the deist's idea of what creator does.

I just cannot imagine that this all powerful being really cares if people pray for good weather or for a good performance in a sporting event or whether a person lives or dies on the operating table and that this all powerful creator would stop what it is doing to intervene.

Yes, I agree. Deism in my opinion is the most logical depiction of a god/creator. Deism also dismisses the concept of eternal punishment a.k.a hell which in my view has always been illogical.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Enlightenment thinkers and “Deists” mostly believed in a single “creator” / God, a single “clockmaker” as it were, who stepped back after creating the world, allowing men through study of nature and his own mind to figure out those laws and base his society and even morality on them. It was sort of Unitarian religion, not alien to a very tolerant and broad kind of Christianity but certainly not Christian in its fundamentals.

To me, Deism does not logically have to predicate a single “Creator.” “The Force” can be many forces. In some ways the 17th & 18th century Enlightenment represented a kind of post-Christian, pro-science “New Paganism.” Of course, as a unique Unitarian religion or philosophy it did not sink lasting popular roots among commoners, who soon experienced various religious (and political) “awakenings” both in the U.S. and in many parts of Europe.

But the victory of the American Revolution and spread of representative Republican government worldwide, with its respect for individual human rights and rights to free speech and conscience, is almost inconceivable without the earlier Enlightened and tolerant thinking of “Deist”-influenced intellectuals and our own “Founding Fathers.”

 

[Blues Man]

Enlightenment thinkers and “Deists” mostly believed in a single “creator” / God, a single “clockmaker” as it were, who stepped back after creating the world, allowing men through study of nature and his own mind to figure out those laws and base his society and even morality on them. It was sort of Unitarian religion, not alien to a very tolerant and broad kind of Christianity but certainly not Christian in its fundamentals.

To me, Deism does not logically have to predicate a single “Creator.” “The Force” can be many forces. In some ways the 17th & 18th century Enlightenment represented a kind of post-Christian, pro-science “New Paganism.” Of course, as a unique Unitarian religion or philosophy it did not sink lasting popular roots among commoners, who soon experienced various religious (and political) “awakenings” both in the U.S. and in many parts of Europe.

But the victory of the American Revolution and spread of representative Republican government worldwide, with its respect for individual human rights and rights to free speech and conscience, is almost inconceivable without the earlier Enlightened and tolerant thinking of “Deist”-influenced intellectuals and our own “Founding Fathers.”

That's true.

Taoism speaks of that type of creator. One that cannot be named but that established the laws of the universe that is know as the way.

Deists believe that reason is how we understand everything even morality and that these things are not dictated to us by a god but that the ability to reason is the what the creator gave us so we are obligated to exercise that ability

 

[alang1216]

Who says the creator doesn't say; "let's sit back and see what happens next"?

So God doesn't already know what will happen? Is everything that happens according to God's plan?

 

[MarathonMike]

So God doesn't already know what will happen? Is everything that happens according to God's plan?

That would be boring.

 

[alang1216]

That would be boring.

For you or for God? So your God is not omniscient? Interesting, I believe that is a minority view but it would explain a lot.

 

[badger2]

So God doesn't already know what will happen? Is everything that happens according to God's plan?

Why did G. relegate the naming of the animals to Adam if G. already knew their names and what would happen to them? A. must have been set up for some kind of later blackmail.

 

[badger2]

For you or for God? So your God is not omniscient? Interesting, I believe that is a minority view but it would explain a lot.

As Derrida shows, any idea of omniscience is destroyed with his treatment of the spacing of time. G. is as susceptible to that as everyone else.

 

[alang1216]

Why did G. relegate the naming of the animals to Adam if G. already knew their names and what would happen to them? A. must have been set up for some kind of later blackmail.

He knew what names Adam would give them, of course.