RE: Deism vs. Theism: Which is the more likely understanding of God?
November 20, 2010 at 5:06 pm
To begin this discussion, I think it's important to first nail down the definitions of what we're debating. Deism is commonly misunderstood by both atheists and theists alike (most recently by Dawkins' book "The God Delusion"). The dictionary is insufficient and frankly misleading, sometimes even using hyperbolic language like "abandoned" to describe our belief about God's role in the universe. Atheism is similarly misdefined, sometimes with words like "denial of the existence of God", so I'm sure they can relate.
Deism is looking to the Creation to understand the Creator, as opposed to reliance on scripture, prophets or traditional religion, any of which could be fraudulent or otherwise undependable. It is the belief that reason and critical thinking are endowments by that Creator and their use is not a "sin" but rather the intent. Faith, or accepting that something is true simply on someone else's say-so, is the suppression of that very gift of reason. Long before Darwin's findings, classic deists viewed humans as "rational animals", a perception that dovetails nicely with what science has uncovered. Deism celebrates the natural universe that focuses on what we can accomplish in this life (any possibility of an afterlife or lack thereof is open to discussion). We tend to be optimistic about the human prospect, that reason will prevail and civilization will take us to the stars, in contrast to typical theistic notions of "end times".
I've not read any deist thinkers who have declared that God has "abandoned us", as the dictionary says. However, there's no reason to think that God either answers prayers or desires our worship. It may be so but there's no evidence suggesting it. Given the size and age of the universe, it seems reasonable to assume that the very scale prevents God from relating to us any more than the human scientist can relate to the individual bacteria cell in the colony he created in the petri dish. I often use this metaphor to both explain how God can provide us with the environment we need to survive and prosper, yet not have any personal relationship with us, and also to underscore just how ridiculous theistic assumptions are. Can you imagine one bacteria cell saying to another, "let me tell you about the personal relationship I have with the lab coat in the sky"?
To us, life, the universe and our potential to build a great civilization with it are enough to inspire our sense of the sublime. Deism is a spirituality grounded firmly (and safely) in the natural universe.
I'm not going to go into detail about the Bible or the specifics of Christianity in this discussion (except perhaps to answer any questions or assertions by A Theist) but I want to be more broad in discussing the kind of theism found in many religions, from Islam to Hinduism. While these religions are varied in their perceptions of the divine, they do have in common the idea that God wants worship, answers prayers and periodically disrupts the natural order with miracles or magic.
I've already touched on why I think the deistic model of the universe is compatible with what we've so far discovered about it. For the theistic model to work, there are a few questions that need to be answered:
1. If God wrote a book, why not publish a little more broadly throughout the world? If the Bible, Koran or other book were found in cultures long before they had any contact with each other, it would defy any worldly explanation and provide evidence that the theistic model is correct. Yet, these books could only be spread through human efforts. Why should God even need missionaries at all?
2. If God spoke to prophets, why are the stories almost invariably when the prophets were alone (in the forest, in a cave, on a mountain top, etc)? Why not speak to an entire crowd at once? In fairness, there is a passage in the Bible where Yahweh gives a speech to the entire nation of Judea (Judges 1) but why not today given modern technology?
3. Why the peak-a-boo nature of the theistic God? We have a bit of a paradox here between a god who is apparently so insecure as to require validation from mortals in a variety of submissive rituals (depending on which religion) and yet one who shyly hides and makes it appear that He/She/It isn't there at all. A personality so megalomaniacle enough enough to demand worship (particularly if it's on pain of eternal damnation) would be expected to make appearances and bask in the worship of his minions.
4. If God does desire a personal relationship with me, why is the principle mode of communication (prayer) one way?
5. Why would God answer my prayers and yet ignore the plight of starving children elsewhere?
6. Why was the world at one time so full of supernatural activity but not today? A God who could heal Stephen Hawking as easily as Jesus healed unnamed maimed, crippled and diseased would convince me.
7. Why are there so many brands of theism (Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, etc) and on what basis can we judge which one is right?
I look forward to further discussion.
Deism is looking to the Creation to understand the Creator, as opposed to reliance on scripture, prophets or traditional religion, any of which could be fraudulent or otherwise undependable. It is the belief that reason and critical thinking are endowments by that Creator and their use is not a "sin" but rather the intent. Faith, or accepting that something is true simply on someone else's say-so, is the suppression of that very gift of reason. Long before Darwin's findings, classic deists viewed humans as "rational animals", a perception that dovetails nicely with what science has uncovered. Deism celebrates the natural universe that focuses on what we can accomplish in this life (any possibility of an afterlife or lack thereof is open to discussion). We tend to be optimistic about the human prospect, that reason will prevail and civilization will take us to the stars, in contrast to typical theistic notions of "end times".
I've not read any deist thinkers who have declared that God has "abandoned us", as the dictionary says. However, there's no reason to think that God either answers prayers or desires our worship. It may be so but there's no evidence suggesting it. Given the size and age of the universe, it seems reasonable to assume that the very scale prevents God from relating to us any more than the human scientist can relate to the individual bacteria cell in the colony he created in the petri dish. I often use this metaphor to both explain how God can provide us with the environment we need to survive and prosper, yet not have any personal relationship with us, and also to underscore just how ridiculous theistic assumptions are. Can you imagine one bacteria cell saying to another, "let me tell you about the personal relationship I have with the lab coat in the sky"?
To us, life, the universe and our potential to build a great civilization with it are enough to inspire our sense of the sublime. Deism is a spirituality grounded firmly (and safely) in the natural universe.
I'm not going to go into detail about the Bible or the specifics of Christianity in this discussion (except perhaps to answer any questions or assertions by A Theist) but I want to be more broad in discussing the kind of theism found in many religions, from Islam to Hinduism. While these religions are varied in their perceptions of the divine, they do have in common the idea that God wants worship, answers prayers and periodically disrupts the natural order with miracles or magic.
I've already touched on why I think the deistic model of the universe is compatible with what we've so far discovered about it. For the theistic model to work, there are a few questions that need to be answered:
1. If God wrote a book, why not publish a little more broadly throughout the world? If the Bible, Koran or other book were found in cultures long before they had any contact with each other, it would defy any worldly explanation and provide evidence that the theistic model is correct. Yet, these books could only be spread through human efforts. Why should God even need missionaries at all?
2. If God spoke to prophets, why are the stories almost invariably when the prophets were alone (in the forest, in a cave, on a mountain top, etc)? Why not speak to an entire crowd at once? In fairness, there is a passage in the Bible where Yahweh gives a speech to the entire nation of Judea (Judges 1) but why not today given modern technology?
3. Why the peak-a-boo nature of the theistic God? We have a bit of a paradox here between a god who is apparently so insecure as to require validation from mortals in a variety of submissive rituals (depending on which religion) and yet one who shyly hides and makes it appear that He/She/It isn't there at all. A personality so megalomaniacle enough enough to demand worship (particularly if it's on pain of eternal damnation) would be expected to make appearances and bask in the worship of his minions.
4. If God does desire a personal relationship with me, why is the principle mode of communication (prayer) one way?
5. Why would God answer my prayers and yet ignore the plight of starving children elsewhere?
6. Why was the world at one time so full of supernatural activity but not today? A God who could heal Stephen Hawking as easily as Jesus healed unnamed maimed, crippled and diseased would convince me.
7. Why are there so many brands of theism (Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, etc) and on what basis can we judge which one is right?
I look forward to further discussion.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
