I just got back from a 4 day work trip with a co-worker, and at one point while we were meant to be studying, we talked about our beliefs.

I was surprised to find out that she considers herself agnostic, when just last work season, I complimented her religious tattoo (more as a gentle way to get a feel for her). So I decided to dig in and learn more about her agnosticism. Turns out she's more of a spiritualist/deist which I was a tinge disappointed in, but not much, because she had no problem with me straight up challenging her beliefs. But more than that, and more to my point here, I find that I can't fault vague spiritualists/deists. For one, they have taken the time to question what they were taught, and have spent some time examining their beliefs, which we share in common. But also the main difference that I see between an atheist and a deist is the answer to the question of "Is there a god?".

Now obviously, that's also the difference between an atheist and a theist, but I think there is a distinction that should be highlighted. Our scientific knowledge at the moment has its restrictions, and so some questions are left unanswered. There's no telling if we will ever be able to answer those questions, and the intellectually honest response is to say "I don't know."

So my question is, when you are honestly searching for answers and giving a real effort to inform your beliefs, and you are faced with a huge unknown where you can either go left (there is no evidence of some form of maker) or go right (sure, I'll believe in some form of maker), can you really fault that person? To me, that's still a god of the gaps situation, but I have a hard time faulting the person for it. And I think its because both responses are place holders at that point. "I don't know" is the obvious place holder, but I think "Sure, I can conjure a maker according to what makes me happy" in this context is also a place holder; they clearly have no issue with re-examining their held beliefs should further evidence present itself or they wouldn't have gone looking. I also have to look at the implications. It's not really hurting anything for someone to reach the limits of our knowledge and to make a call, when they've given it just as much effort as I have to reach some conclusion.

What do you think about this? Is this any different than the god of the gaps that attempted to explain, say, the tides or whatever?

I just want to know if you got your dipstick wet?

(January 22, 2016 at 8:20 pm)ignoramus Wrote: I just want to know if you got your dipstick wet?

Dude, you wouldn't even believe this chick if you saw her. But I was totes profesh.

Does that mean ready for screwing or ready for harpooning?

I don't understand the question.

(January 22, 2016 at 8:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't understand the question.

Haha Yeah, it wasn't very direct. The god of the gaps is usually the cry when god is plugged into an unknown, as it should be. However; I have a hard time faulting a person who conducts some sort of search to reach a conclusion or inform their beliefs, and upon finding that there is no such answer, they conclude that there might as well be some sort of maker. And I think there is a distinction to made between doing that and being, say, a Christian and automatically attributing every unknown to god. I certainly have more respect for the former. And I have the same respect for that as I do for someone who in the same situation concludes that there definitely is no god; it's the same thing really.

I guess the question is: Thoughts?

(January 22, 2016 at 9:11 pm)Exian Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 8:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't understand the question.

Haha Yeah, it wasn't very direct. The god of the gaps is usually the cry when god is plugged into an unknown, as it should be. However; I have a hard time faulting a person who conducts some sort of search to reach a conclusion or inform their beliefs, and upon finding that there is no such answer, they conclude that there might as well be some sort of maker. And I think there is a distinction to made between doing that and being, say, a Christian and automatically attributing every unknown to god. I certainly have more respect for the former. And I have the same respect for that as I do for someone who in the same situation concludes that there definitely is no god; it's the same thing really.

I guess the question is: Thoughts?

Problems begin with how we define atheism. Atheism of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, and other popular world deities doesn't rule out the deists' assertion that a different and unknown deity exists, but it does challenge any assertions that there is one with "how do you know that" and "I don't know (albeit I really, really doubt it when I rate on the Dawkins scale 6.99999...)" Therefore, I believe it's a perfectly honest position to take as a non-absolute atheist (anywhere < Dawkins Scale 7.0), but at best it's somewhat wishful to make even the deists' assertion that there must be any sort of deity (supernatural). At worst, deists gravitate toward the palm readers, astrologers and psychics, often following in their footsteps to exploit the gullible.

While we may, or a deist might, argue about the specificness of the concept of god, there are some general outlines of it which entail some hefty ontological commitments. The supposition that an immensely powerful, conscious being exists is not a trifle. It's a holdover from more specific inceptions, and it seems just as hard to justify as the more specific variants. I don't really see it as more defensible. As Min once said, a deist is simply an atheist who is afraid to let go with both hands. However, what they're still holding onto is too substantial to ignore.

Agree, but is it their beliefs which bother us, no.
It is the damage caused by the associated corporate gods which make us a little weary when people connect with any god.

Wacky, sure, each to their own.

IMO, A deist is the result of an unsuccessful indoctrination.