Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 270 (415220)
08-08-2007 8:13 PM


I have recently found myself flirting with aspects of deism. This has come as quite a shock.
Before I implode into a black hole of a pre-midlife existential angst under the sheer weight of deitilogical confusion I would like to ask a few questions.
If any of the following offends you, - that is OK. It is my aim to offend everyone equally and indiscriminately.
To Atheists
Is there really nothing out there. Are you really really sure? “There is no evidence” I hear you cry. You smug self-righteous bastards. Did everything really come from nothing? I mean really absolutely nothing. No space, no time, no other dimensions. No forces, no matter, no energy. No equation obeying abstract concepts. No laws. No rules. No . . consciousness? NOTHING. Really? And doesn’t quantum theory and it’s ”role of the conscious observer’ implications pose some fairly awkward questions? Come out from your faade of rationalism and admit it. The ultimate evidence is against you.
To Deists
C’mon, what the fuck actually is deism? Surely it is just a debating tactic masquerading as a meaningful philosophy. After all how can one argue with someone who believes everything and nothing all at the same time?
What is the rational basis for deism? That which we do not know? That which we “cannot” know? It’s all based on our inability and lack of understanding regarding the most fundamental questions. Is deism at root just a belief in a glorified gOD of the ultimate gaps?
To ”Rational’ Theists and Creationists (because you are both the same really)
Put you bibles/korans/torahs/etc/etc down for a second and think. Pretend your book of choice does not exist for just a moment if you can.
Look around you. Aren’t all those difficult theological questions about pain, death, suffering and evil much better answered by an uncaring and indifferent creator? The best evidence you have for God is the appearance of design and frankly there is nothing in that which suggests anything cares about you. Take away your book and all you have left are arguments for deism!!!!
To Agnostics
Oh who cares what you guys think?
In the unlikely event that this (slightly drunken) rant gets promoted I would like to hear from anyone who can imagine that they are wrong.
Anyone else can stuff off elsewhere!
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-08-2007 9:08 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 10:22 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 11:02 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 1:05 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 8:06 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2007 8:35 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 13 by Parasomnium, posted 08-09-2007 9:10 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2007 7:21 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 34 by jar, posted 08-09-2007 8:02 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 38 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-10-2007 12:19 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2007 5:02 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 71 by Omnivorous, posted 08-11-2007 12:05 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 145 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 1:35 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 208 by Modulous, posted 08-15-2007 5:14 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 267 by Rob, posted 03-05-2008 9:32 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 50 of 270 (415509)
08-10-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by macaroniandcheese
08-08-2007 9:08 PM


Rational
Surely all faith has to be irrational at root?
Thats what makes it faith and not knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-08-2007 9:08 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-10-2007 2:26 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 270 (415511)
08-10-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
08-08-2007 10:22 PM


I don't
Only if you think that a
(slightly drunken) rant
counts as "ultimate evidence".
I don't. At all.
I wanted to ask about deism and wanted to know what made atheists atheists rather than deists.
If anything I didn't do a very good job at asking very challenging questions because A) I was a bit beered up and B) I am an atheist and essentially agree with the gist of your answers.
They are the sort of questions that deists and theists might ask atheists in order to justify their position against deism. So I asked them.
Maybe for the New Age woo-woo junkies. The rest of us realize there isn't a "role" for conscious observers in quantum mechanics.
There is indeed a lot of woo woo BS regards this subject around. But I think you dismiss the question as completely irrelevant too easily
It is interesting to be treated as someone on the other side of the fence for a change.......
You guys don't take any prisoners.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 10:22 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 53 of 270 (415512)
08-10-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by macaroniandcheese
08-10-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Rational
i guess i just wanted you to know that there are theists who have considered their own small place in the world. i'd imagine your idea of a theist is a bit limited.
but then you don't seem to appreciate anyone's position.
My idea of theists has been changed quite significantly by my participation at EvC. In the case of many, such as yourself, definitely positively.
You really shouldn't take my opening post too seriously.
Having a go at everyone indiscriminately seemed like a fun idea at the time.
It seems like less fun now I am dealing with the responses!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-10-2007 2:26 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-10-2007 2:47 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 55 of 270 (415519)
08-10-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
08-09-2007 1:05 AM


Well, before you decide that the issue is settled, do you think you could be bothered to present some of it?
I have no evidence whatsoever
My post was not intended to be taken too seriously.
I was proposing nothing and dismissing everything so I suppose I should expect abuse back from all denominations.
If I thought the question was completely settled in favour of theism or deism I wouldn't have asked equally dumbass questions to deists and theists.
However I do think the question is largely settled. I am an atheist. But I do think that there are some interesting questions about reality, consciousness and the origins of everything that are worth asking even if ultimately they cannot be answered.
And doesn't that mean, therefore, that there's actually not a God who's out there observing everything at once, all the time? Since we've just proven that there are some things (many, in fact) that are not being observed by anybody at all? Including God?
Absolutely. But there are intersting questions that arise if you apply the same principle of eigenstates to the universe (or multiverse or whatever) as a whole.
Imagine the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) as the cat in the box. Nobody has to observe all the particles that make up the cat for the thought experiemnt to apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 1:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2007 4:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 56 of 270 (415520)
08-10-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Parasomnium
08-09-2007 9:10 AM


Re: An atheist answer
Since you address us atheists,
I would generally class my position as pretty strongly atheistic too for the record.
My OP was never really meant to be a serious critique of atheism (or any of the other points of view I ranted against for that matter).
I am slightly stunned that my fellow atheists treated it as such and all started vigorously defending their position against what was a pretty shambolic attack at best.
I can only conclude that there are not enough creationists around to vent our frustrations out on

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Parasomnium, posted 08-09-2007 9:10 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Parasomnium, posted 08-11-2007 11:05 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 270 (415521)
08-10-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
08-09-2007 8:35 AM


I agree with your comments on deism
Quantum theory doesn't require any special role for consciousness. That's just a rather dubious interpretation (and one that I don't believe). But if it did it'd be more of a problem for the monotheists - an omniscient and omnipresent being observes EVERYTHING so there's no room for the quantum weirdness that we actually observe. And maybe it would explain why we are here -perhaps, as soon as the wavefunction includes a possible state where conscious observers exist it is forced to collapse into that state. So even if it were true it could be quite convenient for atheists
It does indeed pose a problem for monotheists.
I think the question of where the rules that govern nature come from is an interesting one.
Even if we are one of many universes in a vast multiverse all with different physical constants and different natural laws being played out, the question of what laws this 'multiverse' is obeying such that all the differnt universe can come into existence remains unanswered.
I don't really think deism is a realistic answer but the questions it causes us to pose are interesting ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2007 8:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2007 8:16 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 58 of 270 (415523)
08-10-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
08-09-2007 7:21 PM


Re: As the resident Deist ...
You are the only actual deist to reply.
From your science posts I must admit that I had always assumed you to be an atheist (until recently where in the 'Best evidence for creation' thread your deism did shine through)
As such I would be interested to know how you made the personal choice you did in a bit more detail
Is there a rational basis for it? Why exactly is it a superior conclusion to atheism?
My own interest is in why the universe should obey any laws at all. Even if we regress the physical laws of the universe back to notions of a multiverse with countless universes each with different physical laws then we still have the question of the laws that govern the creation of those multiple universes.
Why does nature ultimately obey physical laws and where do these come from?
I don't actually think deism is necessarily the answer despite the misrepresentation I seem to have given in my OP.
But it does give rise to some interesting questions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2007 7:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2007 12:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 270 (415559)
08-10-2007 8:19 PM


ATHEISM DISPROVED!!!!!!!!!!
My fellow atheists . .
When I wrote the OP I ended it with
In the unlikely event that this (slightly drunken) rant gets promoted I would like to hear from anyone who can imagine that they are wrong.
Anyone else can stuff off elsewhere!
Now most of you do not seem to have got down as far as that.
Instead you got as far as the end of my not particularly serious, and admittedly rather feeble, attack on atheism before laying into this mercilessly and at face value.
Fair enough I suppose. I should have been clearer in my intentions
BUT what I was, evidently unsuccessfully, trying to achieve was not a serious critique or attack on atheism.
Instead I was looking for atheists to consider the question of deism as an alternative to atheism in terms of explaining why there are laws of nature or where laws of nature actually come from.
Does deism have any merits in that respect in your opinion?
I have recently been reading both ”Brief History of Time’ by Hawking and ”Parallel Worlds’ by Michio Kaku. Both of these books end with the question of an ultimate ”designer’ very much open. Not a personal God but an instigator of the fundamental laws that define the universe or even multiverse. The ”designer’ of the ultimate equation if you will.
It may be that these books do this to avoid alienating a theistically minded audience. This is quite possible. I don’t know and I don’t claim to know.
BUT if these thinkers at the forefront of the field do not automatically reject the idea out of hand what makes you think that you know better with barely even any thought given to the subject? Are you that arrogant?
I am asking atheists to consider this concept as a possibility and to give their views on it rather than just dismissing any opposition to absolute atheism as obviously and trivially stupid.
In my OP I also wrote
You smug bastards
This was intended largely as a joke as I assumed most would be aware of my strongly atheistic tendencies from previous conversations.
However I do think the atheist responses I got were quite patronising in tone and not all that constructive in content. In many ways the parody became reality.
It was interesting be on the other side of the fence for a change. Despite it being in a pseudo sort of way.
No wonder we have so few real creationists around. Even allowing for the paucity of the creationist argument I can see why it would take a thick-skinned opponent to hang around for any length of time. To even suggest that you lot should consider that you even might be wrong takes a certain sort of masochism.
As for the subject heading of this post - That was just to get you attention
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 08-10-2007 10:23 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 270 (415617)
08-11-2007 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chiroptera
08-10-2007 10:23 PM


Re: ATHEISM DISPROVED!!!!!!!!!!
"The universe simply exists" doesn't seem to me to be any less satisfying than "Some god somewhere somehow made the universe at some time," and it certainly has fewer moving parts.
That is pretty much the basis of my own atheistic tendencies.
Do you think authors like Hawking and Kaku (and no doubt many more) leave the option of a sort of non-interfering deity very intentionally open in order just to appease the theistically minded slightly? Or do you think they genuinely consider it a possibility?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 08-10-2007 10:23 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Chiroptera, posted 08-11-2007 4:18 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 270 (415618)
08-11-2007 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
08-10-2007 4:09 PM


What we cannot know
See, I'm largely of the opinion that questions that can't be answered aren't interesting, and simply aren't worth asking. They're a waste of time.
The really interesting questions are the ones with answers that are hard, but not impossible, to get to. The ones that can't ever be answered - why bother? What on Earth do you gain when you ask such a question? Nothing, that I can see.
My only real problem with that attitude is that it presupposes what we can and cannot know.
We know things now that would have been unimaginable not too many generations ago. Things that would have been considered 'unknowable'.
The nature of God (or whatever) may be unknowable but the nature of the cosmos at levels so fundamental we cannot even yet comprehend of them may be perfectly knowable in time.
How can we differentiate the seemingly pointless questions from the extremely difficult questions unless we ask them all and see where they lead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2007 4:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 83 of 270 (415620)
08-11-2007 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 8:06 AM


WAHAHAHAHA. Beautiful.
I'm so chuffed you wrote that and got away with it. No - I'm not being mean, because many atheists here aren't smug in the least, I could name atleast fifteen. But a few here deserve that, but they'd never admitt it, BECAUSE of it!
Well I am glad you enjoyed it.
I do think the atheist position is prone to smugness despite the fact that I would describe myself as an atheist.
There is a tendancy to treat any alternative as obviously and trivially wrong and to implicitly treat the advocate of any alternative as an obviously irrational imbecile.
Occasionally this derision is justified
But all too often it seems to be the default stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 8:06 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by mike the wiz, posted 08-13-2007 9:42 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 270 (415625)
08-11-2007 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hyroglyphx
08-08-2007 11:02 PM


Flirtations
Great post.
Thanks and thanks (I think.....) for promoting it. I didn't expect it to be taken too seriously or get promoted as a topic.
In proposing nothing and dismissing everything I was taking the opportunity to let off some steam
The prospect is both terrifying and intriguing at the same time.
Sorry to disappoint but I think my deistic flirtations are fairly abstract in nature. Pertaining mainly to qustions of why nature sees fit to follow laws and to the origin of those laws. Maybe some sort of minor pantheistic dabbling would be a more accurate description.
So my Godless ways remain I am afraid
I'm glad you made this post because I have been pining over making one myself but knew it would be long, so I dreaded it.
I think deism is a much ignored subject at EvC.
The deists get away with a lot because of the almost unarguable nature of their position. I was hoping to raise the profile of deism and pin deists down on what it is they actually believe whilst attempting also to make theists and atheists consider their position in relation to deism instead of the usual squabble between the main two positions.
Hope my contribution makes it worth while.
I rarely agree with your views but the controversy that your posts usually inspire and the arguments that they spark off almost always make them welcome additions to any thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 11:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 1:45 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 102 of 270 (415742)
08-11-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
08-11-2007 12:59 PM


Deism is superior??????
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 -
Why exactly is it a superior conclusion to atheism?
It's no less logical. As I said before the logical position is agnosticism: if the logical conclusion were compelling to either side of that position there would be no agnostics
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 blah
I 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2007 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2007 3:51 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 270 (415747)
08-11-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Archer Opteryx
08-10-2007 12:19 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-10-2007 12:19 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-11-2007 10:27 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024