I face-palmed when I read his critique of deism. It seems like he just looked up deism in the dictionary and then did a quick dismissal of that straw man as "watered-down theism".
An atheist should know better than to go by what the dictionary says, given how many dictionaries to this day define atheism as "the belief that there is no god" or something along those lines. It would be like a Christian dismissing atheism on the grounds that "atheists can't provide any evidence that atheism is accurate and correct." Oh wait, one actually did take that approach and wondered why he got laughed at.
As with atheism, the dictionary botches an attempt to convey what deism is, defining it often as "the belief that God created and then abandoned the universe." It seems frankly like a straw man definition contrived by Christians to fit their polemics against deism.
I've said before it's largely atheism with poetic flourishes. How I live my life is indistinguishable from how I would live it as an atheist. The theist and I both use the word "God" and the similarity ends there. Even our concept of just what that word, "God", means is very different.
I know of no deist authors which claimed that God has "abandoned" the universe, with such dramatic language evoking a deadbeat dad. For me, it's a matter of scale and a rejection of the arrogant attitude of the theist that the universe was created for them and that God wants a personal relationship with them. I've used the bacteria example before, of the bacteria in a cultivated petri dish who talks to other bacteria about his personal relationship with The Great Lab Coat in the sky.
I have great respect for Dawkins as a scientist but he should stick to that and not branch off into philosophy.
An atheist should know better than to go by what the dictionary says, given how many dictionaries to this day define atheism as "the belief that there is no god" or something along those lines. It would be like a Christian dismissing atheism on the grounds that "atheists can't provide any evidence that atheism is accurate and correct." Oh wait, one actually did take that approach and wondered why he got laughed at.
As with atheism, the dictionary botches an attempt to convey what deism is, defining it often as "the belief that God created and then abandoned the universe." It seems frankly like a straw man definition contrived by Christians to fit their polemics against deism.
I've said before it's largely atheism with poetic flourishes. How I live my life is indistinguishable from how I would live it as an atheist. The theist and I both use the word "God" and the similarity ends there. Even our concept of just what that word, "God", means is very different.
I know of no deist authors which claimed that God has "abandoned" the universe, with such dramatic language evoking a deadbeat dad. For me, it's a matter of scale and a rejection of the arrogant attitude of the theist that the universe was created for them and that God wants a personal relationship with them. I've used the bacteria example before, of the bacteria in a cultivated petri dish who talks to other bacteria about his personal relationship with The Great Lab Coat in the sky.
I have great respect for Dawkins as a scientist but he should stick to that and not branch off into philosophy.
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
