But what I'm objecting to are your Buzsaw-like attempts to justify deism.
Curiously, I was thinking that the blanket rejection of this evidence as mere hallucination, invention, etc, was similar to the creationist rejection of the evidence for evolution: they just don't consider it valid.
Indeed, as you say, how does anyone know which god?
One doesn't. Even whether any concept currently known is even close, just that there is something there that we don't understand and likely never will, something - or somethings - with abilities beyond\outside nature\time.
Belief is active, remember.
Is it?
You claim that all these religions have something in common, but that thing is not a mono-deity. It's the concept of a human soul that seems to exist in every human religious culture, and nothing else.
No, not the religions, the initial spiritual experiences. As noted, these states have been tested in Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns and found - to the extent they can be measured - to be the same.
I say no, because I can think of several reasons why the concept would occur in any group of humans, and why it would appeal and stick in any culture. But what's certain, the only common point in human religions is not a mono-deity, so your argument in no way justifies deism.
You are free to believe that. Not having claimed any mono-deity, this is rather irrelevant.
You feel there isn't sufficient cause to believe, I feel there is. I also feel that everyone needs to find their own path, so I don't ask you to believe what I believe.
Doesn't this ultimately come down to a contest between the probability that human psychology is universally similar enough to result in the same irrational beliefs to broadly occur in a variety of cultures and the probability that an uncreated, highly complex supernatural being actually exists?
And that the "human psychology is universally similar enough to result in the same irrational beliefs to broadly occur" could be intentional, to allow the belief that a "highly complex supernatural being actually exists" could occur.
Well we might be able to assess the likelihood of different cultures independently arriving at broadly similar irrational conclusions?
You can only calculate the probabilities when you know the possibilities.
Is it really a dogmatic belief to suggest that similar irrational conclusions across cultures are more likely to be the result of similarities in human psychology rather than the actual existence of complex, eternal supernatural beings?
I was originally referring to the dogmatic belief of established religions that try to force all their flock into one belief pattern, one controlled by the "church", but yes, to dismiss evidence without consideration is dogmatic. To dismiss something solely because it has\can not be tested is dogmatic.
The problem is dealing with philosophical and untestable concepts where the scientific method is unable to work. We can measure the external effects of a religious experience, but we cannot measure what is inside it. I cannot hand you my experience to let you try it on.
Seeing as we are all just repeating ourselves to no avail, and starting to use disparaging comments, it seems like it's time to summarize:
The difference between an atheist and a deist:
The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence. They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.
The deist believes there is/are god/s, whether it is rational or not.
Deism is also a broad church, it is individualistic, there is no "church" or standard belief. One wonders how anyone could conclude that there is a single god if you believe that understanding god is outside human capability and there is no communication.
We're all born pure atheists, then absurd cultural influences corrupt most.
And I thought the first god was the supplier of food and comfort (hi mom ).
The topic is what the difference is between deist and atheist, and from reading the posts from atheists here it appears that a consistent element is to deny that any evidence of spirituality is anything other than hallucination and an effect of the way the human brain works. The claim is that this is a rational conclusion.
Atheists do not necessarily believe any of what you've said above.
When you claim that it is a rational conclusion, then that is what you do believe. To me it is one salted with confirmation bias (the only evidence is negative) and cognitive dissonance (all evidence that appears positive is hallucination or a product of brain function, NOT of spirituality).
I consider it rational to say that the evidence is not conclusive either way, and that an open mind cannot dismiss it out of hand. I also consider that my belief is not rational, but it is also not contradicted by evidence - it is faith, after all.
But the topic is not what I or Percy or any of the other deists here think or believe, the topic is the difference between d and a,
The defining difference as I see it, is that the deist believes in (some undefined) god/s, while atheists don't.
How broad is the agnostic church anyway? Or is agnostic a bad word?
What do you call someone who does not believe that absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence?
What if someone thinks it would be cool if the supernatural actually did exist and wasn't simply the result of human imagination? But they need some sort of verifiable evidence in order to believe in such a thing. The kind of verifiable evidence that exists for anything and everything else in this universe that actually does exist. The same kind of evidence that imaginary things never actually have.
Since this verifiable evidence of anything supernatural doesn't exist, they cannot believe, and therefore cannot be a deist.
However they do not absolutely reject the possibility of the supernatural 100%, so they cannot be an atheist (by your definition, anyway).
I would say that if you are not convinced of the absence of deities, and not convinced of the presence of a deity, then you are by definition an agnostic.
I am not agnostic.
Going to the "authority" cited for deism (which I disagree with):
quote:Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + ‘ gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims ” particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality ” is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often mistakenly put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism.[1]
So you could have "strong" agnostic and "weak" agnostic.
And they do not think the question is unsolvable, or nothing to care about, so they are definitely not an agnostic.
Which would eliminate "strong" but not "weak" agnosticism, where the answer is potentially knowable but currently unknown.
Then we have:
I would also phrase it as "one who is skeptical about the existence or the nonexistence of God or gods," as this is more the understanding of the term that I grew up with.
Notice that this only implies a single god weakly. They don't have an entry for "natural religion" but they do for "natural theology" which is "theology deriving its knowledge of God from the study of nature independent of special revelation" so a deist would be someone who derives their knowledge of god/s from the study of nature.
That pretty much rules out uncertainty, and is much more the definition I grew up with.
Deism can be similar to agnoticism in being uncertain of the nature of god/s, but is not uncertain about the existence. Atheism can be similar to agnoticism in citing the absence of evidence, but not in the conclusion reached from that lack of evidence. Atheism like deism is not uncertain.
I find it curious that many people will hesitate to define themselves as agnostics, yet they will define atheist to include their agnosticism. Based on pure logic alone, agnosticism is more rational than either side of the issue.
Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
Which are you? An irrational deist? Or a "rational" deist? But until you definitively state the rational basis upon which you have drawn your deistic conclusions, it remains impossible to actually examine these conclusions rationally.
The problem is that you cannot have black and white distinctions like this, especially after your little rant about atheism being based on likelihood, not proof.
Faith exists without confirmatory OR contradictory evidence -- is that rational or irrational? or is it indeterminate. To my mind it is indeterminate without further evidence. If a concept is not contradicted by evidence is it rational?
I find gods/God/deities/etc. to be deeply and highly improbable. I do not consider them to be "disproved".
And yet we know that "highly improbable" does not mean that life on earth was designed ... so this rationale has as much power as the creationist\ID appeal to improbability.
You have implied that the widespread human belief in the supernatural is somehow actual evidence for the supernatural without explicitly stating this as your premise.
That is one of the possibilities that come from being open-minded on the issue.
I ask myself what evidence would look like, and one of things it would look like is a preponderance of people who believe vs people who could care less, particularly across cultures such that cultural tendencies are eliminated. So yes, I find this evidence supportive, but not conclusive. Supportive enough, that I cannot dismiss it out of hand, as something that is fully understood as hallucination or a by-product of the way the brain is wired.
Another possibility I see is something like a mix between the anthropic principal and panspermia, where the universe as a whole is designed to provide as diverse a set of environments as possible, intentional unpredictable chaos rather than predictable order, but within that unpredictable chaos are the seeds of life - the amino acids and other pre-biotic molecules found in space, made by the stars, and ready to rain down on any world capable of developing life, life that can then evolve intelligence.
There are possibilities in the dancing in and out of our plane of awareness of sub-atomic particles, in the existence of dark stuffs and the possibilities of other dimensions.
There is just so much that we do not know.
I don't consider these possibilities scientific, nor testable, rather that they are philosophical in nature. Nor do I ask you to follow me, but rather to find your own answers.
Returning to the topic at hand, my (small) experience of other deists is that they too have an understanding of the world that is not contradicted by evidence, not contrary to what we see in the natural world around us, yet including faith to believe in god/s. There may be some tentativity about the evidence, but not really about the core conclusion.
My (larger) experience with atheists is that they also have an understanding of the world that is not contradicted by evidence, not contrary to what we see in the natural world around us, but not including faith to believe in ("deeply and highly improbable") god/s. There may be some tentativity about the evidence, but not really about the core conclusion.
Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
And I am still amazed at the virtual absence of acknowledged agnostics. Anyone want to propose a reason for this?
Re: back to confirmation bias vs cognitive dissonance
The most parsimonious answer is that extraneous entities are unlikely to exist if there is no evidence suggesting their existence. Parsimony dictates that, all other things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In other words, in the absence of evidence requiring the existence of a deity, the conclusion most likely to be correct is that no deity exists.
The most parsimonious answer is the one that includes the least assumptions. Included in your argument - unstated (the logical fallacy of unstated premise) - is that all future evidence will also be negative.
Let's use a mathematical expression: Given: 2+2=4 AND 2+2+x=4 Does x exist? Is "maybe" the most parsimonious answer, RAZD?
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" ...
Or to use your argument, there is no room in a most parsimonious answer for any {B} that is not {A}. Of course your math is a(nother) straw man argument where the answer is known, and the confirmation bias of using it, is the implication that you believe there is no {B} that is not {A}.
This takes us back full circle to Message 4, and my comment/s appears to be validated rather than refuted.
Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
Now on what evidence does belief in a deity rest? Is it as strong as the evidence for the age of the Earth? No. Obviously not.
Belief rests on faith, not evidence - or it is not belief but knowledge.
And thus this is just another straw man. We are talking about something that is not tested, while the age of the earth is, and thus not comparable.
.... Faith Vs Reason.
If you wish to tell yourself that. I am getting tired of answering the same arguments over and over, especially when they don't really apply to the topic, and only serve to reinforce my understanding of atheists.
Curiously all your arguments do is confirm that the distinction between atheist and deist is the refusal of atheists to consider the possibilities that deists accept.
We don't have evidence one way or the other on the existence of god/s, and thus the belief in god/s is not contradicted by the evidence of reality. You can belittle and deride the possibility all you want to, pat yourself on the back and call it rational versus irrational, but that does not make any difference to the basic distinction as originally posted in Message 4:
quote:The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
quote:Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
You complain about my not understanding what you are saying about what you believe, yet all the evidence from all these posts keeps pointing back to this basic distinction still being valid.
Not all explanations are equally valid.
Yet somehow yours - based on hidden assumptions and an absence of evidence - are more valid?
Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
You couldn't be more wrong. In relation to the questions of the formation/creation of the universe, it is you, as a creationist deist, who has an active belief that limits you to being in a universe created by deities. Even a strong atheist who claims deities to be impossible is only limiting himself by excluding deities from the effectively infinite number of possibilities we could speculate on in such an unknown area. Other non-theists, including weak atheists, are open to all possibilities.
Not really. The deist belief in god/s explains why, not how. Science only explains how, ergo no conflict at all.
You are trying to criticize philosophy and faith with science, and it just doesn't have the tools to answer the questions of philosophy and faith.
Philosophy still uses logic, however assumptions are required that are inherently untestable (or it would be science), and faith takes a step away from logic. Outside of faith lies concepts that no one has even begun to conceive, and the delusions of the insane?
Agnostics lack faith in gods, just as I do, and they're included in the broad definition of atheism.
I wonder if it really would have more to do with a fear of appearing undecided - there is, imho, a lot of cultural bias against being undecided, no matter what the topic is.
quote:The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
quote:Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
You complain about my not understanding what you are saying about what you believe, yet all the evidence from all these posts keeps pointing back to this basic distinction still being valid.
To refute this position, one would need to demonstrate actual flexibility in considering possible pieces of evidence than has been shown. Instead every suggestion of possibility has resulted in ad lapidem fallacy, arguments from incredulity, and straw man falsehoods all the while claiming it is a more rational argument. Strangely, I don't find that behavior supportive of your position on atheism.
... your suggestion that the confirmation bias in relation to "spiritual experiences" is on the side of the atheists seems to rather backfire.
I've never claimed to be immune from confirmation bias nor cognitive dissonance, just that I attempt to have an open mind and consider the possibilities to the best of my ability, however limited (see signature).
Anyway, I'm sure we'll never agree on all this. In relation to the topic, we could claim that we're inadvertently doing a good job of refuting Moose's suggestion that deists = atheists.
I don't think there is any doubt that there is a difference, exactly where the line is remains indeterminate at this point. It could be a wide band of agnosticism, or apatheism (don't know and don't care).
Certainly both can come close to that undefined line, but neither crosses it.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):
... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
quote:The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Atheism can come in two levels. Strong atheism can be interpreted as a distinct disbelief that there is indeed no god, and weak atheism can range from merely a weak version of strong atheism to a harder form of agnosticism. It depends on personal preference, really.
With the defining element being disbelief, just as there can be strong theism and weak deism with the defining element being belief?
...so you're saying that, as a deist, you believe some form of deity set the laws of the universe into motion without weaving any inherent, objective moral system into it? That morals are subjective?
Yes, essentially, "morality" is a part of the natural world of a species. Would you expect a cat to have the same morality as a rabbit?
Thus "morality" is a function of our evolutionary history rather than some absolute rules. Would you have a god defining morality for bacteria?
The example you used (A = B, .:. all B = A) to say strong atheism is logically fallacious is in fact not true, and I'll explain why.
And here you fall into the same trap of the other atheists so far, in requiring a scientific approach to philosophy and concepts that are not subject to scientific evaluation.
Theists are mentally jumping the gun when they employ faith as a reason to believe in something that we otherwise would have no reason to believe in.
For the theists faith comes first, explanations later. The definition of faith is belief without evidence:
Faith
This means that any argument against faith based on evidence and the scientific method is invalid. Science explains how, faith explains why. And no matter how well you can explain how things work the way they do, this does not answer the question of why they work that way.
Show me one single thing that does not require a scientific approach and I'll concede your point.
Thanks for once again proving my point.
Philosophy means literally "love of wisdom". It deals with the metaphysical. Faith, or adherence to a particular religion, may fall under the category of philosophy, but they are not the same.
Hence the distinction of logic based on unconfirmed untested premises in philosophy and the simple step to belief without evidence or dependence on logic in faith.
Faith explains nothing except that the employer of said faith is an irrationalist and should be treated as such.
Thanks again for your tact and consideration. Curious how atheists feel they need to insult those that don't conform to their beliefs, resorting to the ad hominem argument is usually a sign of a failed position, isn't it?
The problem is that I am not trying to explain anything to you here. All we are talking about here is the distinction between atheists and deists, and all you have done is, again, confirm the conclusion in Message 4, Message 84 and Message 89:
quote:We don't have evidence one way or the other on the existence of god/s, and thus the belief in god/s is not contradicted by the evidence of reality. You can belittle and deride the possibility all you want to, pat yourself on the back and call it rational versus irrational, but that does not make any difference to the basic distinction as originally posted in Message 4:
quote:The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
quote:Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
You complain about my not understanding what you are saying about what you believe, yet all the evidence from all these posts keeps pointing back to this basic distinction still being valid.
).
™ Version 4.2
