RE: Life as a Deist
March 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2013 at 12:39 pm by FallentoReason.)
genkaus Wrote:Those are pretty much the same questions that I used to justify my deism. I used to think that while these ideas could not be considered proof or evidence in a "creator's" favor, they could certainly be regarded as a point in his favor. And this is why I was wrong:
The idea that somehow the properties of our universe are "amazing" and that they have "elegant" truths is a biased view. Even if it had started off as a blob of matter and stayed a blob of matter, it'd still have been governed by some laws of nature (different than our own), that would have been equally amazing or equally mundane.
The fact that we have this universe and not the equally amazing/mundane blob is what gives the plausibility of there being a(n) God/Creator/Architect. This is the universe that holds the beauty and intricate inner-workings of what a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing being would produce.
Quote:As I found out, these questions are being asked. Scientists are looking for a theories for explain these facts of nature - and unless they find an answer, it'd be folly to assume one based on biased perspective. The thing is, even if there is a reason - and I strongly believe there is - there is no reason to assume its sentience. That is the unjustified "leap of faith" that you have to make to get from asking a valid scientific question to get to the foundation of deism.
I don't like the phrase "leap of faith" when it comes to Deism for the simple reason that to me it seems like an instinct. By that I mean that I have been raised to understand that where there is a design (e.g. car, building, painting) there is a designer (e.g. mechanic, engineer, artist). I'm in no way claiming that instincts are accurate and/or reliable, but it is an understanding of the universe that I can't escape, much like I can't make myself believe a e.g. chair made itself. To me, the building blocks of the universe look like they were thought out.
Oh p.s. I answered twice to those posts because I still can't see my own post. Looks like everyone else could see my post just fine though...
genkaus Wrote:It is also the fallacy of special leading.
I don't know how it could be special pleading. I'm not being biased in the evidence I'm considering because there is no direct evidence for a god. I've simply stated what is arguably just a philosophical standpoint for the time being.
Quote:Two things about that. First, your doctrine, as I indicated, is based on bias that somehow the current form of universe is amazing or elegant or somehow better than any other form that could've been. Secondly, all that we have at our disposal - science, philosophy etc. comes from our minds. Why would you need to look anywhere else for their source?
I've sort of addressed the first point, so I'll leave it. The second point: philosophy might come from the human mind, but science certainly doesn't. Did e.g. physics begin to work (or be a part of reality) when we finally learned how to describe it mathematically? "Science" is the term we use for the enquiry of the natural world around us which obviously has existed even before we did.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
