whats your opinion of Deism?

[Skipper]

My opinion on deism is that believing in a God who created the universe and then gave us no holy books or moral instructions to follow would be sort of a useless God.

Would be a god that has caused a lot less trouble, war, death and pain than any god that Theists claim to know.

[GANIMEDE]

One of the main issues with Theism is anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism. The belief is the existance of a Humanoid Prime Mover or "Prime Architect".

Deism proclaims to be "nature oriented"; believeing in a sort of "Natural Prime Actor". Here exists the same anthropocentric problem: Deisms implications are, (like Theism), for the existance of a naturally occurring "Heavenly Father", placing humankind, (as with Theism), in a special and deliberate "chosen position" as "children of a Mega-Creator". I patently reject this view of the Universe because I feel that it sells the Universe short.

As an Atheist, I stand in absolute awe of the mysteries of Nature and the vastness and complexity of Space-Time. I am not about to conjure up some primitive fairytale that it was all created and designed by some giant, all-powerfull humanoid figure. I prefere to keep my mind and eyes open and see life as a process of continual re-creation, and not a world with a "Beginning and End". I have NO fear of death, as do many "Believers". The belief in a "Father-Creator", (regardless of how natural), implies the need to follow HIS RULES. In short: The belief in the existance of a humanoid creator, who created "Time-Space" by uttering a few words, is the first step to maketing human fear and ignorance for profit and selling tickets to "Heaven" for a high price! . . . . (And can U imagine such a bored creator sitting around outside of Time ?)

I believe it is important to continue to educate humanity about science and encourage them to take a scientific attitude toward human suffering and death. (Doctors and science offer better treatment). Both desease and death have natural causes and must never be seen as PUNISHMENT FOR SINFULLNESS. Furthermore: DEATH is a natural part of life and never anything to be in fear of, nor is death the opposite of life: Death is an integral part of the creative and re-creative process which we call "The Universe". Respect it. Do not sell it short with fairytales, regardless of how comforting you may find them.

The belief in a "Humanoid-Father-Creator" is the first step in the concept of "SIN"; a concept which has been used to subdue, humiliate and opress the human psyche for centuries.

I say: Stand in awe of the Universe. Learn to appreciate it mysteries, and waste no time ascribing to it a "Beginning and End" to a fairytale "Prime Mover" wether it be a "natural occurring deity" or a "miraculously appearing spirit"; it is all the same rubbish . . . . . Let it go.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Deism is an appealing belief, and certainly more plausible than theism. However, I don't think the arguments of Natural Theology (i.e. the Design argument and First Cause argument) are strong enough to support the rather improbable idea of a disembodied mind that exists outside space and time (which presumably any deist god would have to be).

[Ervin]

Same as I can't comprehend the begining of time, I believe possible other concepts such as the existence of God.

I would say that there has been something somewere always. Its a concept/fact I can't comprehend. So who is there to say that there are not other concept/facts that we might never comprehend like God.

Surely, religion(Theism) has done damage and it has slowed science down in the past and it still does stop the progress in some countries, but thats Theism, or bad versions of Theism.

Actualy I have a question. Do any of you think that there are acceptable forms of Theism? Like what about Quranist Muslims or Unitarian Universalist Christians or Quakers? I hear all these are very open minded and can live side by side with the rest of us.

Thanks

[Edwardo Piet]

My opinion of deism: It's a load of nonsense. It's simply less nonsensical and less harmful than theism (monotheism being particularly harmful but polytheism being equally nonsensical).

[Rayaan]

Would be a god that has caused a lot less trouble, war, death and pain than any god that Theists claim to know.

It's the same because there would still be war, death, pain, and suffering if the deistic god is real. He's not any better because he doesn't even do anything to make our lives better.

[Watson]

I have a friend who's beliefs border on Deist. He and I have had several interesting chats about God on the occasion that it's come up between us, and while I can't say I agree with him on his views, it's a belief that I can respect and understand in these crazy modern times. My biggest peeve with Deism is the idea that a god would simply 'move on' or 'grow bored' with anything it had created; it's an attribution of human emotion to a decidedly non-human being and it doesn't seem to fit the standards of what being a god would entail, to me at least.

Still, like I said. I can understand and respect the concepts and I think if you feel you are Deist, that is perfectly fine.

[KichigaiNeko]

Deism is the answer (supposedly) to the fact that the fucking universe is one awesome place and there is "something" what it is, is intangible,what it is, is indefinable ...what it is is US!! so ....

Yes there IS something bigger than You...Yes it IS you and yes you can affect the universe....otherwise how can Zen Badger get the
1. Woman of his dreams
2. Car of his dreams
3. House of his dreams
4. Job of his dreams
5. AND keep on dreaming

Deism is still pandering to a "deity".... the fact still goes begging..just WHO is the "deity" here???

Deists just don't want to own up to their own responsibilities...
[/end rant]

[DeistPaladin]

I personally don't classify deism as religion but rather as a philosophy (hence my use of lower case "d"). This is a subjective matter, I realize, but "religion" to me has certain connotations of structure that deism and pantheism lack. There are no strict dogmas, scripture, clergy, temples, rituals or any other trappings of religion. Were deism to become to dominant "religion" in a country, it would be largely indistinguishable from a secular society.

Reason why I don't say Deist Agnostic is because I see Deism as a form of agnosticism.

True. Deism is only distinguished as a perception of the universe as a grand machine with some mysterious mind behind it. But since we yet know nothing about that mind, we are also somewhat inherently agnostic, the term meaning "no knowledge of spiritual matters".

---

My opinion on deism is that believing in a God who created the universe and then gave us no holy books or moral instructions to follow would be sort of a useless God.

Also, I think that the deistic God is one which doesn't have any personality and emotions. In that sense, it's like believing in a God who exists in the form of a natural, universal law that always existed before the creation of the universe and thus believing in such a God is not very different from believing in M-theory or any other scientific explanation of the universe which are also believed by atheists.

I see it as a matter of scale. Theists and their "personal relationship with God" invoke an image in my mind of two bacteria cells in a petri dish* where one tries to sell the other on a "personal relationship with the great lab coat in the sky". The scientist, in this analogy, does exist and did cultivate the bacteria. However, he has no personal relationship with the individual bacteria cells and no way of emotionally relating to their trials and tribulations in their life. The scientist might be a very good and loving person. That's not the issue. The problem here is a matter of scale.

To reference Sagan, we're a tiny blue dot in the vast cosmos. There's no reason to think it was all created just for us or the Creator is watching over us.

* This is intended as a tongue-in-cheek "Far Side" -esque analogy for the bacteria used to make a point.

---

I see one major flaw with Deism, it is the same flaw that it shares with Theism. Namely if an complex being created the universe. Then there would necessarily require had to be a even more complex being to create this being.

I've heard Dawkins make a similar argument. My reaction is "what do you base that assertion on?" Simple giving way to complex is very much a part of our universe. We create artificial things that are more complex than ourselves, do we not?

---

Or even more straight to the point: Why make the assumption that god(s) exist?

I will admit that I probably can't offer you an argument that will satisfy you. Aside from my "homosexuality proves God" argument, which mostly serves the purpose of aggravating fundies rather than arguing with atheists anyway, my reasons for being a deist and not an atheist are instinctive. Yet, I can't take the label "atheist" with any intellectual honesty because, deep down, I am convinced.

I actually went through a phase for about two weeks where I wondered what was wrong with me, why I couldn't be a "normal atheist" like all of my friends and most of my family. This happened after I realized that most of the arguments for God that I had used were justifications rather than the basis for a conclusion. Hence my "agnostic deist" label, because rationally I admit we don't know and yet, there's my instinctive side.

I'm in awe of the universe as a grand machine. It is the natural that provides my sense of the sublime. But this is an appeal to wonder. Deism is for me the truce between my skeptical brain and sentimental heart, a way for me to keep such spiritual instincts safely grounded in the natural universe.

---

The belief in a "Humanoid-Father-Creator" is the first step in the concept of "SIN"; a concept which has been used to subdue, humiliate and opress the human psyche for centuries.

I don't believe in an anthropomorphized deity. AFIAK, deism is a rejection of such a view of God.

---

It's the same because there would still be war, death, pain, and suffering if the deistic god is real. He's not any better because he doesn't even do anything to make our lives better.

See my petri dish metaphor to fully understand why the problem of evil is only a problem for those who believe in a personal god.

---

My biggest peeve with Deism is the idea that a god would simply 'move on' or 'grow bored' with anything it had created;

This is, as far as I can tell, a strawman attributed to deism, even by the dictionary. The same dictionary falsely defines atheism as "a denial of God", so you can't go by the dictionary.

---

Yes there IS something biggDeists just don't want to own up to their own responsibilities...
[/end rant]

Sorry, I couldn't follow your post clearly. Can you explain?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's the same because there would still be war, death, pain, and suffering if the deistic god is real.

It's not about the reality of theistic God but whether he is believed in that influences those things.

---

my reasons for being a deist and not an atheist are instinctive.

Appeal to intuition?

Yet, I can't take the label "atheist" with any intellectual honesty because, deep down, I am convinced.

Your experience convinces you, you don't know why it does, so you don't know why you are convinced.

I actually went through a phase for about two weeks where I wondered what was wrong with me,

From society's perspective?

why I couldn't be a "normal atheist" like all of my friends and most of my family.

It's a harmless belief.

This happened after I realized that most of the arguments for God that I had used were justifications rather than the basis for a conclusion.

It's good that you realize that.

I'm in awe of the universe as a grand machine.

I am sometimes. I'm not always feeling that because I'm not always reflecting on that. Sometimes I am instead feeling an aversion to the world because of how fucked up it is.

The machine is grand it's just a case of whether I am currently feeling that the machine is mostly full of a deadly computer virus or not.

It is the natural that provides my sense of the sublime.

What's unnatural? Artificial things. Where do artificial things come from? Nature. What are they made of? Nature.

So what doesn't provide your senses with the sublime? What do you have an aversion for?

But this is an appeal to wonder.

So it's just the way you happen to feel. I'm not saying your perspective doesn't influence your feelings, of course it does. But that's just the perspective you happen to have. You don't have a perspective for no reason (or if you do have a perspective for no reason, then you can't be the reason for it).

Anyway, I'm rambling, sorry.

Deism is for me the truce between my skeptical brain and sentimental heart,

Well, that's nice.

All my sentimental feelings are nostalgic ones (since I've never experienced romance). I try to stay away from sentiment because I feel an appeal to it, like intuition, can sway me away from rationality (not necessarily, but it can do. I love rationality more than sentiment or intuition any day).

a way for me to keep such spiritual instincts safely grounded in the natural universe.

It's nice you can appreciate such instincts. As for me, my ideal is the rationality and self-restraint of a 100% stoical robot with the ability to experience a mellow high.