Belief in Deity vs Belief in Fictional Four

The following question arises from my perusal of Antony Flew's new book "There is a God".A recurring proposition on this forum has been the equating of belief in God with belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Zeus (oh, and of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster). More specifically, the usual assertion declares that just as (childish) belief in the Fictional Four is eroded by a lack of empirical confirmation, so should be the fate of Deism (belief in a deity).The question I want to pose is this: Why (how?), if belief in God is categorically equivalent to belief in the Fictional Four, does a rational, intelligent human being like Antony Flew recover (or discover for the first time) belief in the existence of a deity?The sequence of events regarding belief in a deity is incongruous to that involving the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghettis Monster. In each of the latter cases, initial belief is supplanted by rational skepticism...The End. In the former case, there either initial belief or unbelief, followed by "rational" skepticism, followed by either the assumption or the resumption of belief.In other words, must not there be a fundamental difference between belief in a deity, and belief in the Fictional Four that allows for the assumption or resumption of belief in the one case, and not in all the rest?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

My answer is that Flew isn't as rational or intelligent as you give him credit for, at least not in this one instance.Flew's belief in god is a sort of Deism: belief that a demiurge created the universe billions of years ago but then didn't have much interaction with the universe since then.I'm not sure what's so rational or intelligent in believing in a god whose sole reason for existing is to just answer one question that Flew didn't even understand very well.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Zeus is a deity. So, in that case, no. If you believed in Zeus you would be a theist, just as you are if you believe in any other deity.The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a deity created in a lab. FSM is popular but no one reveres it. It exists to make a point--which it does, very well. But if you did believe the FSM was a conscious being, you would likewise be a theist.The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are myths like the other two, but not deities in the same sense. In a more localized use of the word 'deity' you could perhaps call them this. You could say Santa is 'god of the Yule hearth' and the Easter Bunny is 'god of fertility' in the same sense you might say Janus is the 'god of the threshold.' But in this usage, 'god' is closer in meaning to Christianity's 'patron saint.' Still, if you really believe Santa or the Bunny represent conscious beings, you could perhaps qualify as a kind of theist. An animist or a polytheist, maybe.These images, like all myths, are true symbolically regardless of whether they are true literally.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I just read this on another forum:Santa:
You have to be good.
You can ask him for things you want.
If you've been good, you might get them.
But you usually don't, and it's your fault.
He's not supposed to be seen, so you must take him on faith.
People still sometimes claim to have seen him anyway.
There are many books and stories about him.
There are even movies about him.
And lots of songs, most of them annoying.
He has magical helpers.
He's worked miracles.
He has his own holiday.
He has a long, white beard.
If you're bad, he'll put coal in your stocking.God:
You have to be good.
You can ask him for things you want.
If you've been good, you might get them.
But you usually don't, and it's your fault.
He's not supposed to be seen, so you have to take him on faith.
People still sometimes claim to have seen him anyway.
There are many books and stories about him.
There are even movies about him.
And lots of songs, most of them annoying.
He has magical helpers.
He's worked miracles.
He has his own holiday.
He has a long, white beard.
If you're bad, he'll send you to burn forever in a lake of everlasting fire.Okay. So one little difference.

Yeah, Santa's a great guy. But let's face it: Zeus and YHWH kick more butt.

Flew's belief is indeed Deism, which is exactly why I brought him up, and is precisely the manner of belief I want to focus on. Deism by definition addresses a deity who isn't known; This Deity does not immanently relate to humanity; Deism (at least Flew's deism) does not purport to "answers questions" and certainly not to define the raison d'etre of a deity. On the contrary, all Flew's deism asserts is that the existence of a Deity is implicated in some manner or fashion, to some degree or another, in a way that the Easter Bunny is not, in a way that Santa Claus is not, in a way that Zeus is not, and in a way that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not....

Flew's conversion to Deism was based on false information. He's old, evidently slowing up and was deceived into conversion.

WOW!! That's quite a just-so story. But then I suppose you have even a shred of proof for any of those claims? Let's check them out.1. Flew's conversion to Deism was based on false information.Who presented him with false information. Furthermore, what in the world is "false information" concerning a deity?2. He's old.True. So what?3. He's evidently slowing up.Obviously. Anyone who believes in a deity must be retarded. But I'm sure you can prove this?4. He was deceived into conversion.Who deceived him? A deity? Or maybe the Christians brain-washed him...Read his book, listen to the man talk, and then tell me you really believe anything you've said above, much less can prove it...Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.

quote:

---

WOW!! That's quite a just-so story. But then I suppose you have even a shred of proof for any of those claims? Let's check them out.

---

I note that actual knowledge of why Flew converted and what convinced him seemed to be unnecessary for YOUR post. I guess like many theists you just assume that the world HAS to be the way you want it to be.

quote:

---

1. Flew's conversion to Deism was based on false information.

​

Who presented him with false information. Furthermore, what in the world is "false information" concerning a deity?

---

Gerald Schroeder wrote the book or books that convinced him. And the "false information" was about science and the universe (although it seems odd that any theist would think that there COULDN'T be false information about a God !)

quote:

---

2. He's old.

​

True. So what?

​

3. He's evidently slowing up.

​

Obviously. Anyone who believes in a deity must be retarded. But I'm sure you can prove this?

---

Of course that's not what I said. But then many theists agree with you that smearing opponents is fine. Especially when that opponent is telling the truth. Did it not perhaps occur to you that I might think that Flew is slowing up BECAUSE HE WAS DECEIVED ? Because THAT is the case.

quote:

---

Who deceived him? A deity? Or maybe the Christians brain-washed him...

​

Read his book, listen to the man talk, and then tell me you really believe anything you've said above, much less can prove it...

---

I've already answered the first point. As for the latter it's obvious that you've never done any of those things. After all I'm the one who knows why he converted - you don't.

What Flew believes (or used to -- I'm not sure about the current state of his beliefs) is that the universe had a creator. Since we use the word "deity" to describe an alleged creator of the universe, we say that Flew believes in or believed in the existence of a deity. If we traditionally called the supposed creator of the universe Santa Claus, then we would say that Flew believes in Santa Claus.And my previous point stands. Flew came to his conclusion because he believed that the so-called "fine tuning" of the universal constants of nature is evidence of the existence of a conscious creator.In other words, when pondering the question, "Why do the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned to allow intelligent life?" he didn't have an answer. So he made up, "It must have been a conscious creator!" just to have an answer.That isn't particular rational.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

To me, it is certainly rational to presuppose a Creator. Of all of the ideas that have ever been discussed, was there ever a situation or example of an idea that didn't originate in the mind of another?

By definition, ideas reside in minds. So, no, all ideas originate in the mind of another. What is your point?This isn't just directed at you only, Phat, but, folks, it would help the quality of your conversations if you would actually explain your points instead of just writing a post containing just a rhetorical question that you find profound.Yeah, I'm probably guilty of this too, but I do try to learn from seeing how other peoples' posts look.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

I guess what I am saying is that the Universe itself is an idea. (for Pantheists, it is an ideology)In brief, it seems logical for a Creator to exist before matter.To assert that matter always existed means that humanity, as an idea, never had an origin. (If we conclude that we sprang up through natural processes, would not our own ideas about our origin be a form of circular reasoning?

Um, okay.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein