New here.
Just wanted to say that, having read most of the posts, and all the run around and flowery language from poster "Ignorant" and so on, the basic answer to the thread question is that there is no reason why you should care.
It seems to me that the OP posits a deist "God" or "Creator" or "First Mover," as opposed a "personal," theist entity (whether the Abrahamic "God" or something like it).
Well, sorta the whole point of historical deism was that "God" didn't really matter. He/It/Whatever set the universe in motion, but then left the scene. This view allowed enlightened 18th century folks to avoid the socially damaging and possibly even dangerous label of "atheist," while at the same time freeing them from the obligation to actually care about the alleged "Creator." The whole absurd business about talking snakes and the like, and the general nastiness of the Old Testament, and the need to account for the fact that the New Testament is pretty clearly an awkwardly attached add on that doesn't jibe with the Old, could all be jettisoned, and the parts of Jesus' nice philosophy of selflessness, forgiveness, etc could be retained because of their humaneness, without the mumbo jumbo about him being the "Son of God," the need for blood sacrifice, and so on. Jefferson, I believe, produced a version of the New Testament that only included the ethical teachings, and simply cut out all the miracle and other supernatural bullshit! Science and history could be pursued to actually find out about the real world around us, and morality and ethics could be evaluated based on their intrinsic worth, rather than merely accepted as being promulgated from On High. Deism freed humanity from the pointless, endless, and bloody theological nonsense debates, and from the straight jacket that theological obsession put on the search for real knowledge.
To be a deist meant not having a "relationship" with God. Much less the "personal relationship" with God that the current Born Agains prate on about.
So, sure, just like one might want to know about the Big Bang, one might want to know about the deist Creator who got the ball rolling. But only in an academic way. And one can certainly live without it. One might compare it to Continental Drift theory. Unlike the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of humanity questions, the question of the validity of Continental Drift theory doesn't seem to inspire much heated controversy. I take the theory to be true because, like every other schoolboy, I have looked at a map and seen that South America and Africa seem "fit," and, more importantly, because trained geologists persuasively say it is the best theory around. But, if a new and better theory took the place of CD, if trained, specialized scientists were to assert and show that the evidence is that there never was a Gondwonoland or Pangea, well, so what? Why would it matter to me in any real, personally important way?
Much the same here. Without the threat of heaven and hell, without ethical rules supposedly emanating from a being that cares about me and will eventually judge me (in other words, without a theist "God"), the mere existence of a creating being is only of marginal concern to me, as a person living in this time and place and enmeshed in my own life, my own web of human relationships, and so on.
Deism pushes God to the beginning of Time, and thus makes him irrelevant. Again, that is what it was supposed to do.
Just wanted to say that, having read most of the posts, and all the run around and flowery language from poster "Ignorant" and so on, the basic answer to the thread question is that there is no reason why you should care.
It seems to me that the OP posits a deist "God" or "Creator" or "First Mover," as opposed a "personal," theist entity (whether the Abrahamic "God" or something like it).
Well, sorta the whole point of historical deism was that "God" didn't really matter. He/It/Whatever set the universe in motion, but then left the scene. This view allowed enlightened 18th century folks to avoid the socially damaging and possibly even dangerous label of "atheist," while at the same time freeing them from the obligation to actually care about the alleged "Creator." The whole absurd business about talking snakes and the like, and the general nastiness of the Old Testament, and the need to account for the fact that the New Testament is pretty clearly an awkwardly attached add on that doesn't jibe with the Old, could all be jettisoned, and the parts of Jesus' nice philosophy of selflessness, forgiveness, etc could be retained because of their humaneness, without the mumbo jumbo about him being the "Son of God," the need for blood sacrifice, and so on. Jefferson, I believe, produced a version of the New Testament that only included the ethical teachings, and simply cut out all the miracle and other supernatural bullshit! Science and history could be pursued to actually find out about the real world around us, and morality and ethics could be evaluated based on their intrinsic worth, rather than merely accepted as being promulgated from On High. Deism freed humanity from the pointless, endless, and bloody theological nonsense debates, and from the straight jacket that theological obsession put on the search for real knowledge.
To be a deist meant not having a "relationship" with God. Much less the "personal relationship" with God that the current Born Agains prate on about.
So, sure, just like one might want to know about the Big Bang, one might want to know about the deist Creator who got the ball rolling. But only in an academic way. And one can certainly live without it. One might compare it to Continental Drift theory. Unlike the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of humanity questions, the question of the validity of Continental Drift theory doesn't seem to inspire much heated controversy. I take the theory to be true because, like every other schoolboy, I have looked at a map and seen that South America and Africa seem "fit," and, more importantly, because trained geologists persuasively say it is the best theory around. But, if a new and better theory took the place of CD, if trained, specialized scientists were to assert and show that the evidence is that there never was a Gondwonoland or Pangea, well, so what? Why would it matter to me in any real, personally important way?
Much the same here. Without the threat of heaven and hell, without ethical rules supposedly emanating from a being that cares about me and will eventually judge me (in other words, without a theist "God"), the mere existence of a creating being is only of marginal concern to me, as a person living in this time and place and enmeshed in my own life, my own web of human relationships, and so on.
Deism pushes God to the beginning of Time, and thus makes him irrelevant. Again, that is what it was supposed to do.
