Deism in the Dock

I'm pretty sure I'm an English major dropout, actually. Not sure what your point is, here. Isn't that exactly my point? That just swapping names around doesn't change what we can know about something?People do that with God all the time, though. No two people can agree on what God is. You see people all the time who claim to be believers, but when pressed, they say things like "well, I just use the term 'God' to refer to human fellowship" or "peaceful feelings when I'm in nature" or "money."There's plenty of people who think it's totally reasonable to believe in "God", when they're using "God" as a metaphor for some aspect of the human existence - not necessarily as a deity who exists. Of course, many people also use "God" to refer to a deity who, they hold, really does exist.Different people mean different things when they say "God." Your statement from before, taken in that light, just doesn't make any sense. Just because you call something "God" doesn't mean we can't know about it.If I decide to call my asshole "God", it doesn't suddenly become unknowable. You can still take a look and see that it stinks. But, Omni, that's exactly what you did say:

quote:

---

any God or "ultimate reality" is unknown and probably unknowable.

---

Any God. That's precisely what you said.Don't get all disingenuous in a huff, Omni. I was trying to keep this civil but now you're all up in a tizzy because someone actually read what you wrote.Take it down a notch. You were wrong. It happens. Get over it. If you call it "God", I have to accept that it is God for you. I don't have to accept it as God, of course, but you did say "any God.[/i] Well, what defines "God" is hardly a settled matter. Simply because you or I may prefer a definition that includes a bunch of characteristics doesn't mean everybody has to believe that a god always has those.Personally, if an entity can't grant spells to clerics and has no native plane of its own for followers, I don't consider it a god. But that's just me. You did say "any", indicating you were talking beyond the context of this thread. Might I suggest less inclusive terms, then, for someone who's so insistent about their superlative commitment to logic? Oops, so it is. Well, what do you expect? I'm just a dirty fucking atheist hippy, not one of you oh-so-superior, Vulcan-logic-using agnostic superminds.

quote:

---

Great post.

---

Well, I see that you intended for it be slightly humorous and intentionally smattered, so in that way, you are perhaps surprised by the turn out.But your objectivity in the matter caused a lot of people to think seriously about it. And so here we are. I was just sharing my own remembrance. Even if you were to become a full fledged deist, these beliefs would obviously be very impersonal for you. At the most, you might gain some newfangled appreciation for, as you said, the laws of nature. I don't know if that is by design or coincidence, but in either case, I think you are right. I've tried to understand deism many times. If they believed in God for teleological reasons, (such as Spinoza's God), I could at least understand the approach. But so far, every deist I've spoken to is a staunch evolutionist who argues that finding design in nature is a worthless, and moreover, impossible endeavor.I find this interesting because the definition of deism is as follows: [i]belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation[/qs]Well, this description falls short of our resident deists. They all claim that God cannot be seen in nature, nor have they reasoned why they believe in God. They just do, for some unknown personal reason. Yeah, well, being one of the most hated members on the board has only one redeeming quality-- I'm never in shortage of a conversation.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Crash, if you can't recall any of your posts asserting authoritative langauge skills based on your studies, acting, and native intelligence, I'll find one for you. Why pretend otherwise when my posting the material will only make you look ridiculous?Still, I don't really mind that--you are obviously a bright and articulate person, one I often agree with, esp. politically. But seizing on a word out of context and progressing from myopic misrepresentation to insult was stupid.You screwed up. Just accept that. Move on. More precisely, it is one word in a post of many words conditioned by the context of the thread's OP and other posts to date. Jumping up and down and yelling "It's what you said! It's what you said!" when called for taking a remark out of context is childish. Crash, laughing at you does not consistute a tizzy.The civil part must have been where you said: I see you preferred to ignore rather than attempt to refute my comments about context. I'm not surprised, but I am still smiling. No, kid, you were wrong. Now that you understand that, you can grow.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Not at all. It was you, my socially-challenged amphibian friend, who concerned yourself with the source of the congratulatory activity. I merely corrected you on detail.Herr Rilke raises an interesting question--one I notice you have not addressed. Surely, being so good with answers, you can tell us.How does one know the difference between a truly unanswerable question and a question that has no immediate answer?Rilke accepts that sometimes we can't, and counsels patience. He suggests that we value the question, live and gather experience, and pay attention. One day we may live into the answer. Answers happen to those who value questions.You have not acknowledged this difficulty, much less offered your own solution for it. Neither have you shown Rilke to be wrong. You merely rejected his advice on the basis of your own lack of patience.It is clear that you are not really a fan of answers, as you say.You merely like the fast answer. The hasty answer. The all-destination, no-journey, I-can't-wait answer.But take heed, little tadpole. It does you little good to avoid wankery only to commit yourself to a life of premature ejaculation.____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

If I ever claimed to be the sole arbiter of the English language, then that was a mistake. I've had training in linguistics and literature.I don't recall a single instance where I've asserted that I was "verbally gifted", or where I claimed to be a "language professional."But I can't possibly see what any of this has to do with the topic. We're talking about your claims to be a superlative logical mind at the same time that you're making ridiculous logic gaffes. Look, I read the context just fine. You turned your back on the context - rejected it - when you said "any God". "Any" means that you're expanding your remarks beyond the initial context.Words have meaning, Omni. I assume I can try to tell you that without being accused of making grandiose claims of language superiority? To the contrary - I addressed your comments in the portion of my post you chose not to respond to. Is this the vast logical intelligence you were talking about, before?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

You're trying to tell me that I "have not addressed" a question I have asked myself, in this and other threads, an innumerable number of times?If you're interested in my thoughts on the answerability of questions, direct yourself to one of the other threads. What we're talking about here are questions that we have already agreed to consider unanswerable. You asserted that some questions were unanswerable. I'm simply taking you at your word. The question Rilke poses is the one you should be asking yourself before you unilaterally declare some questions to have no answers.If you now adopt the position that there are perhaps no unanswerable questions, then what exactly are we arguing about? It seems like you've backpedalled right out of the position I was arguing against. Yes. Because the destination is more important than the journey. Otherwise there would never be a need to do anything but walk in circles.Look, you need to learn that sometimes people say things that sound like wisdom simply because they sound different than what is obviously true. Things like "black is white" or "up is down" or "the journey is more important than the destination." Things like "intuition is just as good as science." Things like "theists and atheists are exactly the same."Part of growing up is realizing that these statements have only the false veneer of wisdom. What's wise in being talked out of what you can plainly see with your eyes? You've simply fallen prey to the "wisdom" of contrarian soundbites. No big deal, most smart people do at some point; we usually call that time "philosophy major, sophomore year."

Heh. I had to look up who Kaku is.I don't know what these people really think, and I haven't read enough of them to even take a good guess.I do think that Paul Davies might be sincere when he makes these musings.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

No doubt. But does that exhaust the possibilities?Isn't it possible that other reasons could exist for why things sometimes sound this way?Elements that remain to be factored into your equation?No need to answer right away...___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I have allowed for some extraneous, off topic dialogue in order for a few members to clarify positions. I think what needed to be said has been said by all sides. At this point it is simply a battle of the wills.Do not continue with who is an English major, who isn't, or anything along these lines.Everyone said their piece, and its now over. Lets get back on topic.Thank you for your cooperation.

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

That's fine then. Run along now.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Seriously RAZD, what's up with the hostilities??? I'm asking a very straight forward question. You gave me the answer, even though it is unsatisfactory, IMO. That's your answer. You can't explain it. Fine.Thirdly, they aren't strawmen. They are perfectly valid questions. You calling it a strawman, is a strawman. Well, lets look at the truth concerning deism.The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

​

A belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelationYou assert there is NO evidence for God. Deists believe in God because of the argument from design, something you lambaste incessantly.By all definitional rights, you aren't a deist, because you don't see this God in nature nor have you any actual logical reasons for coming to the conclusion.This is where my confusion lay which is why I asked the question. I'm not trying to offend you or your personal beliefs. I'm simply inquiring as to how they are logically consistent. Its an honest question that deserved an honest answer. Are you going to cede that your philosophies contain irreconcilable differences and contradictions? Will you stop asserting them? Or should I expect you not to be interested in learning?

quote:

---

Hypothetically, would your failure to grasp Christianity bear any reflection upon you by the same rationale?

---

? I didn't understand the sentence. Obviously not, being that its a hypothetical. I'm questioning your reasoning, not your actual ability to grasp Christianity. Excuse me, RAZD!!!! An attack on my part?!?! I asked a real simple question. You responded way beyond what was warranted with all sorts of fallacious allegations.In your defense, the internet is devoid of body language and voice inflections that help us all understand each others tone. Perhaps you assumed that I was "attacking" you. I wasn't. I just asked an honest question in response to the OP. You could have not responded.I suspect you did so because my question struck a chord in you. Presumably, you can't defend your belief, as evidenced by your inability to answer it. But I didn't force you in to an indefensible position. You did that to yourself, all on your own.Then you set up a strawman defense in order to avoid answering the very simple question by diverting everyone's attention away from the actual question. You did so by trying to turn it around on me, as you are still doing.

quote:

---

Pardon the frankness, but it does sound as if you are deluding yourself if you are basing your belief upon belief itself. That is generally characterized as blind faith, which is, interestingly, slammed vehemently in most cases. I have an informed faith. There are very real reasons why I believe as I do.

---

I have given a million and one reasons for why I believe the way I do, RAZD. Whether my reasons are true or not is a matter of debate. The point is, I have real reasons. If you don't-- cool. Whatever. But I never want to hear you bombastically flame anyone on EvC for ascribing to what you might refer to as blind faith. Then make sense. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Raz I think you are one of the most respected and, for want of a better word, "feared" posters at EvC.I think because of that slightly 'revered' status you are given a lot of leeway by the atheist fraternity in particular.For example when you say - I think had a known creationist made the same comment, or an agnostic, or a less respected deist, the atheistic mercilessly unforgiving floodgates would have been opened.However in your case the argument went generally ignored. This, I think, is a shame.As the OP generator and an avowed atheist I feel that I should challenge this position even if your renowned debating skills result in me looking like a complete plonker as a result Therefore I must ask the most basic questions of you as a deist -1) If there is a creator who or what created them?
2) Is eternity a satisfactory answer given that we have no reason to suppose eternity or the eternal exists?
3) Is the deistic creator more complex than the creation which it produced?Etc.etc. blah blahI have no doubt that you are more than familiar with the usual arguments against theism vs atheism.My question is -
How does deism explain these most fundamental of questions and how are these answers different or superior to the standard theistic responses that are so widely rejected by the sort of atheistic arguments found at EvC?In essence - Is the deistic position genuinely superior to the theistic? Or at the fundamental level are the questions the same?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So where do you stand on deism as a realistic contribution to the ultimate questions of life then universe and everything?

Deism? Gee, I don't know. I'm still pondering that bumper sticker I saw in the States:

What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?

I'm sympathetic to our colleague who said Deism hasn't really been brought into focus here. I was thinking of requesting a new thread. Something along the lines of Deism: A Primer, where people like RAZD can explain it and people like me can ask questions.When I think of Deism I think of the eighteenth-century Ben Franklin brand. But it seems to have taken a turn at Albuquerque on its way here.How's your head since your rant, by the way?.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

What I see is four directions to the same truth. God is not an anthropomorphic Santa Claus that micromanages the creation, regardless of pleas or egotistical assumptions to the contrary. In order for any god to be the real God, it is necessary for God to be available for all, regardless of custom or birthplace.While IMO there is great beauty to be found in the Qu'ran, the Vedas, and especially the New Testament, among other belief systems, such admirable attempts at an appropriate relationship with the divine are often wrongly interpreted far too narrowly to mean that only those humans who act, think, and indeed even look, exactly like the adherent provide an appropriate response among the so-called appropriately theistic.What I see in this case is ultimately the exact opposite of that which is holy. The anthropomorphic god becomes Mao Zedong and paradise becomes the Cultural Revolution, where all who sought to live acted, thought, and even dressed completely alike.I find it interesting that such a paradise is often the one promulgated among the supposedly most righteous (or should I say self-righteous) among the major religions. What is also interesting is that those who lived through the Cultural Revolution describe it not as paradise but rather 'hell on earth.'When considering this fact, it is easy to see how and why the US was founded by deists allied with the most insightful Christians who understood any god that was not meant for all was indeed a false god.More to the point, IMHO, Matayama Buddhism, Philosophical Taoism, Spinoza Pantheism, and Deism are four directions converging upon the same truth. That truth includes something not often seen among the self-described religious, a sense of humility before, coupled with an overwhelming drive to understand, God's creation.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza