Why Deism?
It has been my understanding that Fundamental thought is given their saftey to believe because of the umbrella that the moderates allow. Moderates are given their umbrella of saftey by the liberals and liberals by the Deists. Isn't it safe and probably the best decision to just discount all belief, accept all belief as a personal decision grounded in nothing empiracal or evidential and just move on? As someone who does not believe in god at all, I find the only honor in belief is in 2 factions . . .
#1) The fundamental. Though what they believe is demonstrably incorrect, at least they believe something for a reason . . . they are willing to discount all reality in exchange for the hopes that a single book might be true.
#2) Those who believe in Einstein's god. These folks however are basic atheists because they admit that their god is invisible, unknowable and not concerned about morality, how we live our life or even us in general.
Everyone one else as far as I can understand has their belief in a god based upon numerous denials of what god has historically been in human history for thousands of years. The modern invention of God is just a rehashing of the old school belief in god, nothing new. In fact, I would say that with our advances in knowledge, we can entirely discount the notion of god and attribute the belief entirely as a natural funaction of human behavior and superstition. If we are indeed pattern finding creatures, it must be admitted that god has been often a false pattern defined to explain events which have often been explained without invoking the notion of his existance.
Anyway, so why Deism?! Seems silly to me.
Just asking and wondering,
-Jim
Those are valid questions Jim.
My answer is "why Atheism"? Why not plain and simple "Agnosticism" instead? That would be the most unbiased and in keeping with the evidence viewpoint. Atheism, like Deism, is a rational belief, yes I called Atheism a belief. It is the belief that there is no god, well...at least by modern Atheisms standards.
You are correct that those whom believe in a Deistic god/force, Eisteins,Spinozas,Aristotle,Epicurus's, or Paines god can by and large be considered Atheists in the calssic sense. Atheism comes originally from the Greek "Atheos" meaning "without god{s}/godless"- NOT "WITHOUT BELIEF in god". By this Deists are indeed De-facto Atheists or at least De-facto Agnostics, they are withgout gods to worship and are practically godless. But by modern Atheism defintions they are different from Atheism as is Agnosticism, all 3 beeing rational, evidence based views. But the fact is that Deists, or in the case of men like John Armstrong here or myself or Heretic - we are Agnostic-Deists{as most rational Atheists are actually "Agnostic-Atheists"}- I also consider myself ApaDeistic{god may exist, but is irrelevent outide of philosophical pondering} and an Anti-theist to boot. What we have as Deists,is a "intellectual leaning" based on natural laws, evidence, and reason, and it is a belief- but not a faith, it has degrees of uncertainty; Just as most TRULY Rational Atheists{not the "strong" ones , just as the "Strong" Deists are not so much so} have a "intellectual leaning"- both beeing UNCERTAIN and open-mindedly skeptical of the others leaning as well as of their own. Hence the only UNBELIEF is plain Agnosticism- it is the default position that need not explain itself{the claim made by most Atheists in the modern Atheist movement; even to the denial of the rationality of both Agnosticism and Deism; which is to the detriment of rational Atheism and which makes Atheism seem absolutist and illegitmate- WHICH IT IS'NT MIND YOU, THough their are Atheisst whom prmote atheism as the ONLY rational view and therefore they make their irrational absolutism illegitimate}.
Deists or Agnostic-Deists{Apadeists like myself as well} have this intellectual "leaning" simply because we think the evidence supports it's existence or at least the "probability"{which there are varrying degrees thereof, just as there are of "possibilities"} of it existing. And from my own perspective I think Agnosticism is the most rational position to take given it's unbiased until proof is in attitude{by this I mean UNBIASED TOWARDS ATHEISM AND DEISM; true rationalism in my opinion discounts 'theism" out of hand now, I mean theistic deities are of course "possible"- as anything is "possible", but not very possible}, I also think that Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Deism both are equally supported by evidence and reason and neithe blatantly contradicts such.
That's WHY "Deism'. It's also WHY "Atheism".
At least, that's how I percieve it.
In Reason:
Bill
"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the "transcendent" and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you. "- Christopher Hitchens
Iconoclastithon's veiws are fairly identical to mine.
Thanks for your reply. I still don't understand why NONBELIEF is not the defacto stance on any issue that lacks empirical reasons to believe. For instance, I am not a bigfoot agnostic, or a lochness agnostic, I am an atheist in both of those branches. I am also a UFO atheist, though I understand that there are reasons why I might be wrong. Atheism to me it seems is the place from which we start any discussion. I was born an Atheist and since birth I have seen nothing to move me from Atheist to Agnostic or Deist. Information and reason alone is able to move me from nonbelief towards belief and I would be dishonest if I said that I have found anything very convincing to force that move. In fact, I would be more willing to claim that I am agnostic towards UFOs than god, however, even the existance of UFOs is based upon so much conjecture and blind guesses that it's pointless to make any claims at all (and quite honestly it is a boyhood fantasy of mine to go to another planet aboard a UFO . . . so I might also just want to head towards belief on this issue to fulfill a fantasy - I suppose that is very similar to "faith" --- and I have to keep that in check).
It doesn't follow that deism provides an "umbrella" for theism. Quite the opposite is true. At the end of the day, all the Islamo-Christians have to offer is Pascal's Wager and the Watchmaker. Deism takes away the latter and turns it against them. I would also argue that without the latter, the former (already based on a fallacy of appeal to fear) is weakened.
As for why, why ask why? As with Einstein, my sense of awe in the natural universe is what gives me my sense of God. If that doesn't work for you, I wish you well in finding what makes sense to you.
I am highly disapointed in your reply John, especially the section when you said "why ask why?". Basically, you told me to not question matters of faith and then told me that if you answer doesn't work for me than "good luck". That answer smacked of faith . . . and once again, I still maintain that faith of ANY kind can become an umbrella for more dangerous flavors of faith. Faith has no self-correcting mechanism, and without correction, things can, will and even MUST run amock.
Well Jim, I agree, I'm not with John on the "why ask why" thing.
However, I find it odd that you should accuse him of faith there and not yourself. For your response after mine indicated you don't care to ask why when it comes to atheism. For eample you poo-poo Agnosticism in relatoions to a deistic god as wlel as UFO's, Loch-ness, bigfoot,etc. None of these has ever been disproven. And there is even evidence for UFO's, there have been amss sightings that have not been yet explained. an intelligent force{god if ye will} has evidence supporting it as wll, but no proof either way as of yet.
Yet you refuse the rational point of Agnosticis, opting stubbornly instead for what I call a faith-based STRONG Atheism. Yet you refuse to ask "why strong atheism?".
You are in no place my friend to be dissapointed in Johns answer.
{however I have seen reson to see John as faithless, moreso than yourself. I've seen him describe his beliefs as containing a fair degre of agnosticism; which is why he confused me when he said "why ask why", because he does often ask why to my knowledge}.
In Reason:
Bill
"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the "transcendent" and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you. "- Christopher Hitchen
Iconaclastithon said" Yet you refuse the rational point of Agnosticis, opting stubbornly
instead for what I call a faith-based STRONG Atheism. Yet you refuse to
ask "why strong atheism?".
I agree 100% that I should be skeptical of every stance I hold. However, Atheism is nothing to be skeptical of really. Atheism is a non-belief and is nothing of itself. In order for me to lose my Atheism I would have to accept another belief . . . doubting Atheism doesn't really make sense. It's as if I am asking myself "do I really NOT believe in the Loch Ness Monster?" rather than asking the more legitimate question "Do I have reasons to believe in the Loch Ness Monster?". I don't have to ask myself if there is reason to NOT be Atheist, rather I need to ask is there reasons to be (insert alternative belief system here).
I am an Atheist because It would take faith in something unknown to be otherwise.
I never told you not to question matters of faith. I don't know how you managed to read that into my reply. Quite to the contrary, I urged you to find your own answers.
My apologies if my answer sounded a bit flippant but understand I've done the deist-atheist debate enough times over the last five years that it's all familiar territory. I know all about the god-of-the-gaps, occam's razor and the usual false comparisons between the idea of a Creator vs. folk tales about the Loch Ness monster. The debate never goes anywhere because it's all about truly abstract philosophy that has no impact on the world we live in.
Questions like "was the universe made or did it all just happen" or "what is the meaning and purpose of our existence" are the kind of questions that only the individual can decide for themselves. These are the domain of personal philosophy and should be recognized as such. You can say that the universe explains itself and declare this the default assumption but this too is an assumption on your part. This is fine, of course. Whatever works for you.
I define "faith" as allowing others to think for you. This is based on the common usage of the term, how it is used to describe submitting to an organized religion and its dogma. This is not something I do nor am I keen on pushing my beliefs on others. My objective is simply to get people to question and search for their own answers. This objective seems to be shared by the vast majority of atheists I've known.
I've already explained why deism is not an enablier of Islamo-Christianity, not even the more mild or liberal forms of it. If you continue to think so, then you haven't read my book, Paine's "The Age of Reason" or any other deist writings. May I suggest you take some time, since my book is freely available online, and then let me know if you have any questions.
JohnArmstrong said: "I define "faith" as allowing others to think for you."
I think that is where we disagree. I define faith as a belief that is not backed with empirical, rational thought. Independant thought and critical thought are completely separate in my mind. There are a TON of conspiracy junkies that tend to be fairly independant thinkers though I would not say they are very critical in their results. Critical thought however can only be achieved in an independant frame. With your definition I can see how numerous religious believers can claim that faith is not a large part of their religion. Most religious folks probably would not agree that their ideas are not their own . . . therefore they would have no faith from your point of view? Actually I find that definition of faith quite confusing. Perhaps you would like to clarify before I try to debate an issue that doesn't exist.
I'm going by the common usage of the term. The oft-heard admonishment, "just have faith" seems to be another way of saying, "stop asking questions and believe what you're told."
You mention hypothetical people of faith who might deny they have faith. Yet, if these people believe uncritically what they've read in books, what they've been taught in church or whatever medium by which their dogma arrived, they fall under that definition.
By your definition, only agnostics would be without faith.
I don't feel comfortable with that definition of faith for some reason (and whoever said I was having a semantic debate . . . yes, this is). I think the Bible probably says it best in the context in which I am speaking (that of religious faith) when it states that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen . . . that faith, a LEAP OF FAITH is not necessarily a loss of individual identity, but a rational disconnect; a decision to believe in something that there is no empirical reason to believe in. Though individualism can be stolen by forcing young children and the like to have faith that God will help them, faith is separate from individualism.
Deism implies the belief in a Deity (no matter how impersonal or unknowable . . . the belief is implied).
Atheism throws up it's hands and says . . . no evidence, no belief. To claim that atheists have a disbelief towards god is also a strawman . . . I have just as much disbelief in god as you do in the existnace of a 149 year old man named Ted in Africa. Until there is evidence, disbelief . . . or rather the lack of belief is the only intellectually honest course.
Breaking down of individualism is precisely what religion does. It's a control mechanism by which the leaders of whatever church may use to both enrich themselves and gain power. I would go one step further and say that the breaking down of individual thought, and by extention, critical thought, is what leads to both the atrocities of religion and religion's interference with scientific and sociological progress.
My definition of "faith" speaks directly to what I find so objectionable about religion, both to its dangers and to its brainwashing. You may not agree, and I'm not trying to make this a semantic debate here, but I hope you can at least understand where I'm coming from.
I suspect we won't agree on my coment regarding agnosticism. By ruling out a Creator, you are stating that the universe came to be on its own (especially in light of how there was a "creation" some 13.5 billion years ago). At the very least, you're using this as the default assumption.
You also mention "intellectual honesty". I can only ask you to take my word for it that the natural universe does leave me convinced of the existence of God. I could role-play an atheist quite easily (and have on occassion). My friends, family and those I work with in the freethought movement are mostly atheists. However, that demeanor wouldn't be genuine. Intellectual honesty demands that I tell you that I'm a deist.
John,
I could not agree more that religion is a dividing force that tends to "brainwash" people or at the very least diminishes their ability and dependance upon individualism and critical thinking skills.
I don't understand what you are in disagreeance with however concerning "non-belief" to be the starting basis of knowledge. Please explain to me how I am making a statement about the existance of anything as an Atheist. As an Atheist I am simply stating that nothing has been shown to exist . . . I am not making some absolutist statement about god not existing. Agnosticism, to me, seems almost a dishonest position in the sense that I am not an agnostic towards elves, though I suppose it is POSSIBLE they exist . . . due to the lack of evidence it isn't worth even discussing the existance of elves until there is a REASON to believe. I am an atheist concerning elves. Agnosticism, though I suppose there is an inherent humility to it, appears to me to be a bit too open and I don't think the "humility" is really useful. I don't think it is beneficial to walk around being agnostic about things in which we can demonstrably show are probably NOT true. Like any Atheist I suppose I am agnostic in the sense that I am unsure if God exists, however I am Atheist because it has not been demonstrated that she does exist.
Concerning "intellectual honesty" and your belief in god. I respect the fact that you believe and I trust you you believe. I think you are being personally honest with me in espousing your belief . . . however, I don't not find belief in something which is not demonstrable to be intellectual satisfying in the least.
Just for analogy's sake . . . Christian believe in little elves that save our soul and damn us to Hell. You still believe in elves, yours are just more benign, impersonal and hidden. Both of you believe in elves however.
Thanks for the conversation John, I look forward to your reply.
-Jim
We definately need to start a new thread. The indentations are getting pretty severe.
EDIT TO ADD: The new thread is entitled "atheism, agnosticism and deism"
this vid pretty much outlines what the qualities of a cult are, though in general I don't feel unsubstantiated beliefs are that harmful, these kinds are.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjVZT2CGWI
The one thing a good skeptic should always to is weigh possible with plausible (basically Occam's razor).
Take UFOs for example. Given the term means Unidentified Flying Object they most undoubtablely exist. The real issue at hand is while it is possible that some UFOs are ETV (Extraterrestrial Vehicle) is it plausible? By Ommar’s Razor the answer is no as top secret aeronautical projects is a far more plausible explanation.
However, something like Bigfoot enters a grey area. Tells of a ‘wild hairy man’ coming out of Central Africa were long dismissed as ‘local nonsense’ and even called the ‘Yeti of Africa’ until Captain Robert von Beringe shot one in 1902 and sent it back to Berlin. Today everyone knows the ‘Yeti of Africa’ as the mountain gorilla. Science was even more dismissive of the platypus calling the dead animals sent to scientists Fiji mermaids. They stopped that nonsense when someone sent them a live one. Bigfoot and his cultural counterparts around the world strattle the fence of Occam's razor in they are both possible and given things like the mountain gorilla and platypus plausible that science is not giving Bigfoot a fair hearing.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uFZI7im20RU
I think for me one thing is clear. At the end of the day none of us is here of our own accord. This realization gives way to the profound mystery that is at the heart of our existance (and existance in general). For some people accepting this mystery is very difficult and hence this unknown is replaced with a belief in something (ie god). From what I can tell this is not what Deism is, but rather a realization and sense of humble admiration towards the cosmos. I find deism to be very inline with eastern perspectives such as Buddhism, Other than that I see no difference between atheism and deism.
"none of us is here of our own accord" - I am not sure what you mean here . . . I am assuming you mean that there must be purpose and that we are not here by accident. I disagree emphatically if that is what you intended. Though "purpose" is something many of us think about, and might even be a deep seeded human activity, I personally do not wonder about purpose or meaning in the universe outside of myself. If Deism is nothing more than a reverence for the universe, than I would be a Deist. However it seems to me so far on this forum that Deism is more than just reverence, it is the belief in a prime mover or at least some catalyst to the universe. My argument from the beginning of this thread has been that there is no reason to even have a hypothesis, much less debate the hypothesis, based upon any subject which is not empirically verifiable or falsafiable. I also do not think that comparing Deism to any ancient religion brings any sense of modernity to the table. Buddhism, though it lacks SOME of the dogma which many of us find detestable, is filled with its own superstitions, eastern dogma and stone-aged beliefs.
What I mean is that we did not choose to be here. We are products of unfolding process that our outside out control. Terms like "accident" and "purpose" are simply are simply notions we have to help us explain events in the world. Would you say they exist independant of language. One could see for instance the evolution of life on earth as an accident or one could see it as being innevitable. Both claims are subjective and neither are falsifiable so in my mind neither are worth conteplation. Buddhism teaches that in order understand reality we must have a direct experiance of it or in a nutshell experaince it with a clear mind and without bias. While cultural traditions in places where buddhist philosophy is prevelant have added their owen elements, these are secondary to the philosophy which is about as dogamatic as the scientific meathed itself. A qoute below sums it up:
"The Kalama Surta is the Buddha’s reply to a group of townspeople of Kalama. They asked Buddha who were they to believe of all the ascetics, sages, holy ones and teachers They came through their town confusing them with their contradictory truths, teachings, beliefs, and one true way.
• Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it,
• Nor traditions because they are old and have been handed down from generation to generation and in many locations,
• Nor in rumor because it has been spoken by many,
• Nor in writings by sages because sages wrote them,
• Nor in one’s own fancies, thinking that it is such an extraordinary thought, it must have been inspired by a god or higher power,
• Nor in inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption made by us,
• Nor in what seems to be of necessity by analogy,
• Nor in anything merely because it is based on the authority of our teachers, masters, and elders,.
However, after thorough observation, investigation, analysis and reflection, when you find that anything agrees with reason and your experience, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, and of the world at large; accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it; and live up to it."
JIM; I responded yto your post to Johns answer. For some reason It appeared above, right below your post, rather than at the bottom. I ask you to scroll up and read it.
It's titled "Faith of Strong Atheism"
In Reason:
Bill