FallentoReason 2.0

[FallentoReason]

Hey everyone, I've finished my exams and are now on summer holidays, so I thought I would quickly pop by and share my thoughts about something. I'm interested in hearing the arguments from both sides.

Basically, I've been toying with the idea of Deism. This all came about one day when I was driving home from work. The sunset was in front of me and out of nowhere it just struck me as to how bizarre the sun (and other stars) really is. We have this thing exploding and creating a huge amount of energy that is vital for life, all the while having these rocks that--thanks to gravity--stay close to this source of energy at all times. Thus, we are able to live. So yeah.. out of nowhere I just had this sudden appreciation for the ingenuity of the solar system and each of its components.

I guess you could call the above an Intelligent Design argument, which I actually find has one primary problem with it: am I projecting my understand of the everyday world I live in to things greater than the everyday world I live in (i.e. the solar system)? When I see a tv or a guitar I presuppose that there was a designer, but maybe this isn't true of things in nature. Maybe it's just my cognitive functions toying with me and leading me to rationally believe there is a Creator.

I would say that I only actually have maybe 5% of me invested into Deism as of two weeks ago, but I don't really know what to make of it. For all we know, this "God" thing is just a process that doesn't have anything we could identify as "intelligence", but it was rather a "higher order" natural process that created our universe. Well, maybe that would be called a "supernatural" process, but my point is that maybe it's not the typical supernatural stuff that comes from a deity. Maybe it's just a process in a higher dimension. Whatever it might be, I'm inclined to call it the "Creator" or "God" and I think there's good reason to think there's something more than just our universe.

I guess what I'm wondering is this: why not Deism? As far as I can tell, Deism is led primarily by science and through science and the universe around us we can come to an appreciation of the Creator. But like I said, I personally think it could be anything from a process to an actual Creator. Maybe subconsciously I like the idea of Deism because it gives me room to place my thankfulness for life somewhere. It's a sort of placebo that brings my rational side and my emotional side together. I don't really know...

If this is what you mean by "supernatural" or "god" or "creator", then even I would be classified as a Deist or a Theist.

Do I believe there is a higher order of natural processes which are currently beyond the our understanding? Yes, I do.

Would I refer to these as "supernatural"? No, because that would require me to put these processes perpetually beyond nature and therefore our understanding.

Do I believe these processes were the driving force behind creation of universe and/or that of life? Yes, I do.

Would I then refer to them as "Creator" or "God"? No, I wouldn't. Because those words assume intelligence or a consciousness. The implication is contained within their meaning.

The reason why this idea is attractive is because it gives you the illusion of reconciliation between your desire to believe in god and your desire to retain intellectual integrity. The reason I call it an illusion is because it makes you intellectually dishonest in a completely different way. And in this case it may be even more dangerous because here you are being dishonest to yourself.

You have been associating the words "God" and "creator" with an intelligent being your whole life. That characteristic is a part of the definition. The words "god" and "creator" are simply labels we attach to specific concepts and by using those words we are calling up those specific concepts in our minds. What you are trying to do here is use the same label for two different concepts - one implying an intelligence and the other not - so that you can rationally justify your belief by convincing yourself that you are only referring to the "non-intelligent" concept, while subconsciously you invoke the other one as well thereby getting emotional comfort you desire. This is a form of self-deception.

On the other hand, I wouldn't expect the illusion to last. If you continue referring the new concept with the word "god" or "creator", the emotional comfort you used to gain from the previous one would gradually fade away. Eventually, your mind would replace the previous concept entirely with the new one and the emotional significance you attached to the word would disappear.

I think you're absolutely right! My whole intention of defining "God" as being anywhere from a "supernatural" process outside of nature to a somewhat intelligent being was so that I could keep an open mind about the topic, because obviously no one can know for sure what the answer is. But all I've done is subconsciously fuse together two different things in order to find a satisfying answer.

[Faith No More]

I flirted with believing in a generic god that intervened in human affairs for awhile, but in the end I couldn't convince myself that it was anything more than my desire for there to be a purpose behind some tragic events in my life. That's where I think deism fails the most, because deists appear to be slaves to their biases just as much as theists and can't seperate their desires from reality. To me, that is why being an agnostic atheist is the best option. It is a position that avoids certainty to keep from being tricked by my own desires.

[Whateverist]

I flirted with believing in a generic god that intervened in human affairs for awhile, but in the end I couldn't convince myself that it was anything more than my desire for there to be a purpose behind some tragic events in my life. That's where I think deism fails the most, because deists appear to be slaves to their biases just as much as theists and can't separate their desires from reality. To me, that is why being an agnostic atheist is the best option. It is a position that avoids certainty to keep from being tricked by my own desires.

True but at least with Deism there is no orthodoxy and no magic book. I'm still not tempted myself to think there is any kind of creator or helper 'god' out there with a plan. If I were to wonder if there were any higher order intelligences out there I could only imagine it as working within the same constraints and uncertainty we do, albeit with a wider, older and wiser perspective. How this would be different than aliens is not something I can articulate for the simple reason that I find the concept of a 'god' completely incomprehensible. If there is anything at all out there that is beyond me, it is beyond me to know.

It is only when I feel acutely aware of being a small speck in a much greater cosmos that I wonder about how our consciousness plays into all the rest of it. But I don't really imagine that the cosmos as a whole has any consciousness apart from what we individual critters possess.

[Ben Davis]

Yeah, I agree that it's never been proven through science that there exists a supernatural realm and/or a supernatural being.

That's the wrong way round: science has disproven all testable claims regarding the existence of a supernatural realm/being.

The thing is though that science will never be able to do that because all science does is analyse the "aftermath".

Well, science can't detect anything which doesn't interact with our 'universe' and since deistic gods are non-interactive (by definition), there's no difference between them and 'things which don't exist'. Since science has been able to disprove every supernatural claim that is testable, the likelihood is that there are no supernaturalities at all. Therefore i don't see the need to posit a deity on the basis that 'science can't tell me it doesn't exist'.

Let me give you an example: I punch my mate in the shoulder. Through scientific analysis we could have determined that I did it with x force in Newtons. What the analysis won't be able to tell us is why I did it. Science can only simply describe to you how it happened.

Depends on what you mean by 'why': if we're talking about the neurological phenomena, science can tell us quite a lot; if we're talking about the sociological phenomena, science can tell us very little but not 'nothing'. Either way, a basic application of the scientific method (observe, measure, analyse, hypothesise, test, repeat) could be used to work out why you did it. It might not be able to generate a robust theory but it would be useful, none the less.

Again, I have to admit that maybe, as a human, I'm inclined to see the universe as having that "why" component as well as what science tells us about the "how".

Often, the 'how' and the 'why' are the same answer. For example, the laws that describe how gravity works also describe why bodies obey those laws. Sometimes, there comes a time when the question 'why' ceases to make sense and detracts from our knowledge. I know that, as humans, anthropomorphisation often helps understanding/rationalisation of our surroundings & situations but just like the 'why' question, there comes a time when anthropomorphisation ceases to make sense and detracts from our knowledge.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Deism is just the wishful thinking of those that can't accept theism but are scared of the meaningless void.

[Whateverist]

Deism is just the wishful thinking of those that can't accept theism but are scared of the meaningless void.

I don't think so, though I accept that's what it would mean for you if you were to jump on the Deism bandwagon. I'm not on that wagon but I can easily imagine someone climbing on it based on a hunch where no fear or pointlessness was involved.

Hey, Deist Palladan. Are you still around? Please tell us what got you on the wagon at one time even if you've jumped off since.

[SpecUVdust]

Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries...questions that were once treated only in religion and myth. The desire to be connected with the cosmos reflects a profound reality, but we are connected. Not in the trivial ways that astrology promises, but in the deepest ways.--Carl Sagan


It's perfectly natural to question such a thing. It's just so easy to understand your direct connection( no matter how "small") with the universe already, why do you need more? Whatever everything "is", one thing is certain... It "is." It just "is." That is, until humanity(hopefully) finds the answers to that as well.

[SpecUVdust]

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”
― Carl Sagan

[overlord fombax]

What will you call yourself now??? FallentoDeizm? : O

[FallentoReason]

I just can't help but marvel at what has become. For some reason, the four fundamental components required to produce RNA (a simpler version of DNA, two of which have already successfully been reproduced in the lab) went from chemicals to organisms that would end up playing the game of evolution.

What causes matter to take on this pathway?

Maybe coming to the conclusion that there is a Grand Designer is a lot like believing in Theism because subconsciously your body wants you to survive (i.e. conning yourself into thinking there's eternal life. We seek a way to survive better and religion has falsely provided survival that extends to eternity). Except, with Deism, I don't know exactly what the con is. What have I "saved" myself from? Is it something also related to evolution meaning that my biological needs have fooled me into something that isn't necessarily so, such as being able to live forever? Does anyone have a possible answer to this?