Deism vs. Atheism

[Atheist_named_Christian]

Hi Everyone,

I post this under philosophy, as Deism is definitely not a religion but also claims to be not atheism (I doubt this).

What I wanted to know from you Atheists - or better Deists, if some are here - what do you see as the major difference between atheism and deism?
To me, it seems, that deism is merely the more "harmonic" or "optimistic" version of atheism. Deists just claim that the unknown parts of the universe (before the big bang) are "god" and otherwise have a fully rationalist/naturalist approach to reality.

Deism is surely something I consider "good" - especially when compared to any religion - but I see at least 2 major logical fallacies:

1. Deists claim simply not to know, what will happen after death. This is contradicted by biology/neurology that clearly shows our mind being a product of brain activity. The latter will surely cease after death and therefore there's no life after death.

2. If I call the circumstances that led to the emergence of our universe "god" or "chance" or whatever else does not matter at all. As soon as we will be able to understand this process, it will be merely nature and "god" is pushed back one step further. So Deism needs god just to fill gaps? This seems like solely re-naming something we don't have knowledge of.


I already looked at deism.com, but they don't answer these questions either. (It's even worse: After reading the "outstanding article" about "Atheism's Weakness" I really couldn't see, how the author considers himself a "free thinker" - the arguments are simply horrible and full of logical flaws.)

[Paul the Human]

I always thought that deists believed in a sentient creator being that never interacted with it's creation since the act of creation itself. An apathetic god, if you will. The god you described sounds more like the Einsteinian God, which is not an actual being, but the 'Wow-Factor' of it all.

Atheists do not believe that there are any deities whatsoever or that there ever were.

Deists believe that god created the universe and then either bailed, died, or got into a really, really long game of solitaire.

[Edwardo Piet]

Deism is of course not atheism. Deism is like theism only with a non-personal, non-intervening God. Deism is theism without the religion. Belief in God, without the religion. Pantheism is much more like atheism because it's basically entirely metaphorical in essence, the idea that "God is everything" "God is the world" "God is nature" "God is the universe" is basically the same as saying "God is nothing". Because if he's everything then he's just a metaphor because he's also a lump of coal, a rock, a vampire bat and a dung beetle - and he's not anything EXTRA to those things (or anything else), he's not really a "He" at all. It's just metaphorical.

As Dawkins says, deism is watered-down theism, pantheism is sexed-up atheism.

EvF

[Watson]

I always thought that deists believed in a sentient creator being that never interacted with it's creation since the act of creation itself. An apathetic god, if you will. The god you described sounds more like the Einsteinian God, which is not an actual being, but the 'Wow-Factor' of it all.

Atheists do not believe that there are any deities whatsoever or that there ever were.

Deists believe that god created the universe and then either bailed, died, or got into a really, really long game of solitaire.

Mystery solved! The Bible is really an instruction manual for how to play a really, really long game of solitare!

[Atheist_named_Christian]

Deism is of course not atheism. Deism is like theism only with a non-personal, non-intervening God.

Thanks to all for the reply. What I still don't get is that deists claim to believe in a god, but that this god is completely inconceivable to us. So I really do not see the difference between a god we cannot get in touch with and no god at all. It simply has no impact on our lives and therefore also no implications (or does it?)

I fully agree that pantheism is atheism with different wording. But if deism is watered-down theism, it's really watered down in an homeopathical sense.

[tackattack]

"This is contradicted by biology/neurology that clearly shows our mind being a product of brain activity. The latter will surely cease after death and therefore there's no life after death."
I wasn't aware that this was conclusive, please site your references.

I think that some theists also believe thatthe "existence" of God and his trur nature is completel inconcievable to us. That's probably why we are sometimes compared to diests.

[Atheist_named_Christian]

"This is contradicted by biology/neurology that clearly shows our mind being a product of brain activity. The latter will surely cease after death and therefore there's no life after death."
I wasn't aware that this was conclusive, please site your references.

Of course it is no scientific "proof" but it is very very likely (more than ever before). And I do not see any evidence in favor for it. That you, as a Christian believe in life after death, I can understand - but I think it does not go well with deism (Christians do not believe in physical evidence, reason and logic while Deists do).

Also, it would be on your side to proof the existence of life after death. Or do you believe in Santa just because he has never been disproven?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I don't see anything more harmonic or optimistic about deism than atheism. Anthony Flew was an atheist that became a deist because he could not see there ever being a natural explanation for the origins of DNA. Flew believes in the God of the Gaps in its purest. There is nothing more optimistic about deism than atheism concerning the afterlife: Flew does not believe in the afterlife and thinks heaven would be boring saying that continuous worship of a deity, as some Christians imagine heaven, would get boring. Perhaps not all deists are 'the same' as not all people who call themselves Christian are the same but I believe Flew highlights the main reasons anyone would call themselves a deist.

[Watson]

Atheist_named_Christian, I would take contention with you rpoint that Christians do not believe in logic, reason, or physical proof- we do, just in a very different way than an atheist or a deist. A much simpler form of logic is applied, in my mind, to the world when through a Christian view-point, and reason is used as much as possible. To say otherwise is simply untrue.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

"This is contradicted by biology/neurology that clearly shows our mind being a product of brain activity. The latter will surely cease after death and therefore there's no life after death."
I wasn't aware that this was conclusive, please site your references.

I don't believe there is anyway to prove that there is no afterlife or soul. They are Russel's teapots floating around our universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_t...ginal_text). I do believe that a relationship between our 'material' brain and our thought processes has been demonstrated. You ask for references; I raise you the split brain experiments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMLzP1VCANo

I chose the split brain experiment because not only does it demonstrate the dependency of thought processes on the brain, but it will also have you asking "Now that significant mental processes (which are conscious themselves of outside input) are entirely independent from his 'consciousness' , which part of his consciousness goes to heaven?" At the end of the video, the scientist explains his hypothesis on which part of the brain forms the 'theory' of our environment and memories. As you learn more and more about the relationship between our brain and our experience, slowly the distinction you make between the brain and soul will fade away.