Deism

General Discussion

Deism

kasualkafe_com 01-31-2008, 6:39 PM
Objective reality denies mysticism and religion, rightly. This is absolutely an atheistic philosophy.

ObjReality even makes a case that one cannot be agnostic.

But what about Deism? A deistic belief of a God outside of nature , with no particular providence within nature , in my opinion does not affect a humanistic , non-mystical philosophy.
I only recently gave myself a title of Deism. I always thought of God as someone who set the "big bang " in motion , wether from the singularity and "poof" expanding universe , or the original collision theory.
But outside of space and time , not in it. I imagined a Good but dispassionate God that set this nature thing in motion , and the incredible laws of nature , and the wondrousness of evolution , and the immensity of vast amounts of time and small steps and changes that amount to leaps etc; And he looks at us like one would look at an ant farm. What a wonderful little world. I won`t touch a thing.

This is a thought I had probably a decade ago , whilst struggling with christianity.

So , during my last few years of self-education , I came across a religious philophy that comes close to this previous thought (granted , I`m simplifying Deism)

But my question remains. Does Deism clash with objectivism , and if so, how?
Kevin Beary www.kasualkafe.com

Re: Deism

NickOtani 01-31-2008, 9:30 PM
Diesm simply means belief in God but not in a traditional way, not in the established way according to the Bible and established religions. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and many of our founding fathers were Diests. Objectivism does not officially accept any supernaturalism. So, if the God is non-personal, something like Spinoza's god, just a word to describe laws of nature, it may be okay. Buddhism also is atheistic in terms of a personal god.

I think Peikoff is wrong about agnosticism. His version of agnostism is the fence- sitting kind which allows for the possibility of God but doesn't want to reject it. That's not what real agnosticism is. Real agnostism is a form of atheism which rejects a belief in God but makes no knowledge claim of God's existence or non-existence. It puts the burden of proof on those who do make the knowledge claims.

I also criticize Objectivists for usinf reason and logic as a substitute God. They tend to use the word "reason" where religious people use the word God. I would prefer to use logic and reason as a tool which we can use but not an alternate diety to which we should subjugate ourselves.

My piece on Bradstreet, Franklin, Emerson, and Thoreau, on earlier pages of this forum, touches on the difference between Frankin's Diesm and and Bradstreet's Puritan Christianity.

bis bald,

Nick

Re: Deism

marantaz 01-31-2008, 10:36 PM
I have to agree with your way of looking at Agnosticism, Nick. I was somewhat distressed with the strong Atheistic stance the Society takes. As I said in an email to the Society when I found it, I don't think this is a battle worth fighting. There is no reason to alienate religious people from Objectivism by insulting the beliefs they've grown up with... let them come to Objectivism because it works, and the beliefs will fade away.
I have never believed in gods, or any other mythical beings, and was adamantly anti-religious. But over time, I came to recognize that religion, while the source of a lot of evil, it also inspired men to fight evil, and to do good for others. And now that we have such shining examples of just how evil a religion can be when it is used to justify terror, clearly Catholics and Christians, and all their various sects, are not enemies of the U.S., or of freedom.
So while I do not believe gods exist, or that a supreme power is responsible for the universe, I do not consider myself to be an atheist, as I choose not to believe, but I also choose not to align myself with any belief system, it's simply not important to me. I think the Society should not hold atheism in such high regard.

Re: Deism

kasualkafe_com 01-31-2008, 11:14 PM
I`ll read your piece on franklin. Just finished his autobiography a month or so ago. I thought I felt the same way he felt about religion. He often struggled with it , as most of us raised within a religion. I never realized he was considered a Deist. Interesting.

Since Deism isn`t a dogmatic religion , there are varieties to it.
I was defining deism more closely to the french enlightenments` thinkers` version of deism. (voltaire , montesquiue ,) or probably even closer to Hume. Spinoza`s deism , where God is Nature , is not quite what I had in mind. But absolutely an impersonal , non-interacting God- A stare into the fishbowl God. A wind the clock and let it go God.

But , it sounds like , as I had surmised , a belief in a deity outside of human knowledge , existence , ethics etc ; would not necessarily clash with Objectivism.

Thank you for your response.
Kevin Beary

Re: Deism

Alumno deVerum 02-10-2008, 3:02 AM
You are correct that there are many different types of Deism. Deism grew out of Theism but can no longer be considered a form of Theism any more than Christanity can be considered a form of Judaism.

I myself am an Atheistic Deist. I know that may sound confusing so I will define it.

Theism is a belief in God based on divine revelation. That assumes intervention by God because even if all God did was implant a thought in someone's head It would still be interacting with the world through the cognative functions of thier brain.

A-Theism of course is a disbelief in such a God.

Deism is a belief in God based on reason not revelation. Some forms of it also hold that the world was not created by God but is in fact what is called an epiphenomenon or unintentional byproduct of God. That is it holds the world is contingent on God but is not created by God. In this way Deism can be A-Theistic because it differs with Theism on how man comes to know God and that the world has a purpose.

But Deism can also be Theistic if someone comes to a belief in God through reason but is convinced that the evidence supports one of the Theistic religions such as Christianity.

Re: Deism

Erik C. Christensen 02-10-2008, 11:45 AM
I consider myself both a Deist and an Objectivist. http://deism.com/

Re: Deism

NickOtani 02-10-2008, 7:22 PM
"Deism is a belief in God based on reason not revelation."

Please present irrefutable reasons for a belief in God. I think the reasons for rejecting such a belief are more compelling.

bis bald,

Nick

Re: Deism

Travis A. 04-14-2008, 10:41 PM
How does one arrive at a belief in God via the process of reason? To say such a thing is a contradiction. The equivalent would be to say that you arrived at 2+2=4 through divine revelation. It's moronic. The stance of an atheist should be based on the facts of reality; in otherwords, facts based on what one observes, not on what one feels. Yes, it's true that some people are able to solve problems based on hunches or feelings. But even these people are validated, correct, only in hindsight when the facts can be seen more clearly. Think about how many people have been wrong because of their hunches (visit any casino for an example).

God = Supernatural = more than natural = can't be evaluated objectively through a process of reason because there are no facts of reality to evaluate God's existence. An atheist believes or should believe that if something can't be evaluated based on the facts of reality it's not true -- for now or until new facts arise that make it true or not true. Atheist are generally the most openminded people; however, if you come at them with something they don't believe in you better bring proof.

To be clear, I am not an atheist. I do believe in God. I am rational enough to know that my conclusion, to believe in God, is based on feeling and not the facts of reality. I am rational enough to know that my belief will never be validated by reality. Thus I will never be that guy who tries to cram his beliefs into someone else's brain and claim that it is the end all be all. Nor will I ever be that guy who creates new terms to validate my belief in God and label the process by which I came up with these new terms -- Reason. What I feel is true is true for me; it is not true for anyone else.

Re: Deism

Mentalmindstabbingknife 04-17-2008, 4:30 PM
I don't agree with a couple of your points Trav. Although the traditional view of religion has been one where the conclusion of Gods existence was merely one of faith there are several viewpoints (including the broad "Diestic" belief and that of Intelligent Design) which conclude that the existence of powerful forces having input in our creation can be demonstrable through scientific means.

My grandfather was a brilliant scientific man who concluded that reason, and not faith, was the means by which to arrive at the conclusion that something with a singular intelligence as we understand it had a role in our development. He cited the complexity of life in general as well as the seemingly impossible reality that something such as ourselves could develop in such a lifeless universe.

I don't necessarily agree with his view simply because we don't have access to very much of the universe to either prove or disprove this claim in regards to the regularity of life. Many scientists speculate that life could and very likely does exist in many corners of the universe. Either life as we know it is more common than we are able to prove or disprove at this point in our evolutionary development or perhaps life is indeed rare and we were simply lucky enough to have it form on this planet. If life is common or rare it does not preclude or deny the existence of powerful or "divine" forces playing a role in that existence. It is not logical to either believe or disbelieve the existance of God at this point based in a rational approach. I believe that life does exist in many other places in our universe and that at least some of it would be advanced enough to be what we would consider divine in power and retaining life creating power. We simply do not have access to enough corners of the universe to gain the information we need. In addition, there remain aspects of our existence of which we still only hold the slightest understanding of. When human beings have evolved biologically and retained the scientific advances of a few hundred thousand years perhaps we will be in a position to claim we grasp the whole picture. The truth remains and it is the same for everyone. Either God exists or it doesn't. If it does, it either takes an active role, a partial role, or no role at all in our affairs. The problem is that we do not yet possess the means to give that truth form or a comprehensive understanding.

Re: Deism

solo 04-19-2008, 3:36 PM
Deism, as well as any "concept" of the supernatural, clashes with Objectivism. The contradiction arises from the impossibility of rationally defining any concept which pertains to things outside the natural universe. This is because all information from which concepts are formed enters the mind originally in the form of perceptual data, and this perceptual data is in turn from sensory data, which is in turn generated from the interaction of the senses with external reality, and thus knowledge is confined to this external reality, ie. that with which one's senses are causally connected, called by the usual term, the "natural universe." Any attempt to consider "concepts" pertaining to anything else is meaningless. And with that observation, all further discussion of supernaturalism ends. Observe then, the nature of the mind and concepts allows only the rational discussion of concepts formed from perceptual information, and precludes anything else. Thus, "concepts" of the supernatural written are properly regarded as merely strings of symbols and spoken merely sounds that can make with the mouth and nothing more.

It is a great failure of those who consider questions pertaining to the supernatural to see this. By bringing in supernatural terms they thus smuggle into legitimate discussion undefined terms, and all observations and deductions thereforward are in turn meaningless. (Interestingly, observe that every post on this thread contains this error.)

Re: Deism

Green_ghost 07-11-2009, 1:00 AM
If u hate to read here is a cartoon showing five reasonable proofs of god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_iGGGMddw&feature=channel_page

here is a list of logical and reasonable proofs of god.
1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-B2--00.HTM

Re: Deism

AndrosBlaze 07-26-2009, 2:28 AM
To refute:
1 - Newton's First Law of Motion: objects at rest remain at rest, and objects in motion remain in motion until and unless acted upon by an outside force. Your proof presupposes that all things started at rest. If this is true, then anything resembling a God figure must have begun at rest, too, if it was to affect nature. In this way, God would need a First Mover, which would trap this thought experiment in circuitous reasoning.
2 - Causality is only relevant in a Time frame of reference: an object suspended three meters above the ground is not caused to fall by gravity unless time is a component (acceleration and velocity are dependent upon time). If you presuppose a First Cause, you presuppose a state in which time was not a factor. If this is true, then the First Cause is not God, it is the incorporation of time as a necessary factor of reality. Again, in order for a God figure to affect reality it must adhere to the laws that govern it: God cannot affect a state if it exists in that state as well, suspended and motionless.
3 - The Necessary Being you presuppose is not God: it is matter and energy, neither of which can be created or destroyed, merely converted into a different state. If you disagree, I challenge you to find scientific proof that refutes the Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy. If you cannot find such a proof, the alternative is the idea that there is a finite amount of matter/energy in existence, which can and has tempered itself into the complex forms now debating this question.
4 - Had to watch the video to understand this one (amusing, as well as illuminating): simply, God must exist, or else there is no basis for an ethical standard. Ayn Rand herself disproved the necessity of this, basing the entire Objectivist ethic on reason, rather than God.
5 - Intelligent Design cannot explain spontaneous chemical reactions: reactions that occur for no other reason than because they can.

A final refutation, unrelated to Thomas Aquinas:
If there is a universal creator, not only do all of the joys of life originate from one being(s), so do all of the evils, and all of the related suffering, originate from that same being. Further, moral assessments on the part of individuals are impossible, as the creator maintains complete control of the course of its creation (either directly, much like a God, or through pre-programmed protocols, much like a simulation), therefore placing all such considerations squarely under the power of that creator. It is true that moral codes exist, the operative word being codes, meaning that there are multiple, often conflicting, moral standards in existence. It follows: either the creator is quite sadistic (witness every war ever waged), as the existence of evil in reality necessarily rules out the possibility of a benevolent/indifferent creator, or the first premise is false and there is no such creator; thus, mankind remains the agent of his own morality (validating every dispute over morals/ethics/principles in history).

Re: Deism

rca411 07-27-2009, 10:54 AM
I fail to see how we can discuss anything 'outside' of nature, coherently. I see where you are going with this, but it doesn't work. Let us say it is an 'ant farm'. Even still, observing an experiment will actually play a part in the outcome of the experiment. If you observe something and decide not to act, you still have made a choice affecting the outcome. A god that sits 'outside' nature, by definition, wouldn't even have the capacity to recognize our existence. That's fine, but kind of pointless.

To say that evolution is 'wondrous', as you have, assigns evolution a mystical quality. Evolution is not wondrous in any way. It is simply a system by which species are modified as they descend throughout time. It in no way confirms or refutes deity. There is nothing 'incredible', as you say, about the laws of nature. They are very credible, in fact, founded upon mathematical principles that apparently work when they are applied for practical results.

Also, all of this talk of science in the same forum as deity is ridiculous. Science and reason is inadequate to prove or disprove god. Science does not aim to prove or disprove god in the first place. All of this talk of Newton and mathematicians is an attempt to argue intelligently (ie with reason) about a subject that is wholly beyond the boundary of reason. Namely, god. I'm not saying that god does or does not exist. Just that using reasonable arguments to attempt to prove or dismiss deity's existence, is ... well ... futile.

Re: Deism

Hotu Matua 10-31-2009, 6:13 PM

I am going to be perhaps too simplistic about this, but when I meet people who claim to believe in a sort of impersonal God who/which exerts no direct intervention in our lives, I ask:

If you cannot talk to your God

If you will never ask God for input or advice for any action, for any decision you take in your life

If you will never do anything thinking that your action will please or displease God, or that you will be punished or rewarded by him in this life or in an afterlife

If you will never try to persuade other people to do what is mentioned above,

what is the point of believing in a God?

I might as well believe in a pink elephant orbiting one of the planets of a remote star which is so far from us that it will die out before we ever detect it. What such a belief would represent to me?

Believing an inintelligible, impersonal God to me is just a sort of atheism inside the closet. Let's come out of the closet. There is much life, much beauty, much fun outside the closet. Try it!

To be is to be is to be.

Re: Deism

galtsgulcher 11-01-2009, 11:53 PM
(Hotu wrote...)
"I am going to be perhaps too simplistic about this, but when I meet people who claim to believe in a sort of impersonal God who/which exerts no direct intervention in our lives, I ask:

If you cannot talk to your God

If you will never ask God for input or advice for any action, for any decision you take in your life

If you will never do anything thinking that your action will please or displease God, or that you will be punished or rewarded by him in this life or in an afterlife

If you will never try to persuade other people to do what is mentioned above,

what is the point of believing in a God?"

Hi Hotu,

I agree.

Belief in God is useless unless it is within the moral context of personal accountability for our actions.

Personally, I don't care if someone believes in a pink elephant as long as that elephant motivates them to do what is morally right...

...because it is our behavior which affects the moral quality of the world in which we live...

...not our beliefs.

Take Care,

Greg