Sometimes I wonder what we're really debating in these threads. I read the following recently, a quote by someone who is undoubtedly much smarter than I am, and likely smarter than anyone posting on this thread:
Quote
"Atheism is the least plausible of all theologies. I mean, there are a lot of wild ones out there, but the one that clearly runs so contrary to what is possible, is atheism."
And this coming from someone with a solid scientific education who describes himself as a non-religious person. He grew up in a faith but rejected it and does not practice faith. If an intelligent, non-religious person can see how implausible atheism is, then maybe some of us haven't thought it through. Still, thinking it through to a position of theism would leave one very, very far from being a Christian.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
If deism is "the belief in God NOT based on revelation," then can someone be an adeist?
Seriously though, none of those definitions are adequate. 1. Many theists do not depend on revelation for their views. 2. Some of the classic arguments for God made by theists were not based on revelation. Example: St. Anselm offered as a logical proof for God, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Nothing in that statement is based on revelation, so in your definition that would make him a deist. He was certainly not a deist, and not merely a theist, but a full-fledged Christian. 3. And it can't quite be said that Christianity is theism. It's far more than that, and theism certainly is not Christianity -- though many talk as though a Christian is a theist and a theist is a Christian.
Steve.
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000) "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
No. Deism is the belief in a God who may have influenced the beginnings of the Universe, but exerts no influence upon the actual workings of the Universe beyond some initial creation act or event (for which He might be ultimately responsible).
BTW, Jefferson is often claimed to have been a Deist, but Jefferson also claimed that "almighty God hath created the mind free...", that "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever (speaking of the injustice of chattel slavery) and that "the mass of mankind was not born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them".
All of these quotes by Jefferson (and a myriad of others reflect the thought of a man who believed that the hand of God was actively at work in the Universe and in the affairs of men.
In any event, the struggle is not between Deism and Theism. It is between belief and unbelief. Deism, properly understood, concedes every necessary thing to Theism with respect to the idea of God and the meaning of the idea of a Supreme Being in the public square and vice versa. Both beliefs stand in opposition to naturalistic materialism, or materialism. Both uanssisted reason (the "laws of nature") and divine revelation (the "laws of nature's God") stand upon the same ground and are in essential agreement as to what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. It was upon an appeal to both of these (essentially )non-contradictory (in the decisive respect) systems of belief that the Founders appealed (in addition "to the Supreme Judge of the Universe" for the "rectitude of their intentions").
As an aside, it would have been pointless for the Founders to appeal to God for the justness of their cause if they did not believe that the opinion of that God mattered, viz., that he exercised no influence upon the Universe.
Jordan
Last edited by RobJordan; 07/30/14.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
No. Deism is the belief in a God who may have influenced the beginnings of the Universe, but exerts no influence upon the actual workings of the Universe beyond some initial creation act or event (for which He might be ultimately responsible).
BTW, Jefferson is often claimed to have been a Deist, but Jefferson also claimed that "almighty God hath created the mind free...", that "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever (speaking of the injustice of chattel slavery) and that "the mass of mankind was not born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them".
All of these quotes by Jefferson (and a myriad of others reflect the thought of a man who believed that the hand of God was actively at work in the Universe and in the affairs of men.
In any event, the struggle is not between Deism and Theism. It is between belief and unbelief. Deism, properly understood, concedes every necessary thing to Theism with respect to the idea of God and the meaning of the idea of a Supreme Being in the public square and vice versa. Both beliefs stand in opposition to naturalistic materialism, or materialism. Both uanssisted reason (the "laws of nature") and divine revelation (the "laws of nature's God") stand upon the same ground and are in essential agreement as to what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. It was upon an appeal to both of these (essentially )non-contradictory (in the decisive respect) systems of belief that the Founders appealed (in addition "to the Supreme Judge of the Universe" for the "rectitude of their intentions").
As an aside, it would have been pointless for the Founders to appeal to God for the justness of their cause if they did not believe that the opinion of that God mattered, viz., that he exercised no influence upon the Universe.
Jordan
You are now going to tell a Deist what Deism is? Well I suppose that's only fair as a Deist tells you what a Christian is.
The problem is Christians have no idea what they are which is why there are so many interpretations of the Bible and so many Christian sects and denominations each saying they have figured out the true meaning of the Word of God as revealed in the Book of all Books the Bible.
Christianity is a theist religion because Christians believe the Bible is the revealed word of God.
I now think it's possible for a Christian to be a Christian Deist as research done by early American historians and some theologians now believe.
As to praying by Deists, some Deists believe that praying for anything is ridiculousness because we are asking God to violate his laws of nature. Some Deists believe that prayers of thanksgiving are okay because prayers of thanksgiving ask God for nothing. Some Deists figure praying is okay because what have you got to lose. Praying by Deists is a pretty open ended argument.
Deism is not an organized religion not does Deism have a holy book of any type. Deists do not believe in any type of revealed religion that comes from a holy book of legends and myths.
Deism came about in the 18th century primarily from Thomas Paine with his pamphlet "The Age of Reason." There was problem of reconciliation for the educated and enlighten between the revealed Word of God, i.e. the Bible and between science and the observation of nature. This argument is still going on to this day.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
I now think it's possible for a Christian to be a Christian Deist....
Think again. The Christian believes God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. When a deist comes to that belief, he is no longer a deist.
Steve.
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000) "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
Nope, you just introduced a red herring. You are choosing to ignore the point as it does not suit your purposes.
TF
I did no such thing. We've been on the theme of evidence vs. faith for sometime. All I did was demonstrate why testimony alone may not be a sufficient basis for belief.
As for your metaphysical ramblings about some internal faith, they are neither testable, verifiable, nor falsifiable, and that's why you've retreated to this last thin tattered bastion for your failing argument.
So falsifiability is your criterion? I think the beliefs of the most certified Wittensteinian Atheist/empiricis/positivist can be shown to be as utterly dependent upon an act of metaphysical faith as the beliefs of the most fundamental Biblical literalist. Atheists are, virtually by definition, materialists. But materialism denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind, which is a necessary condition precedent for intelligible thought about anything. Atheism simply exempts itself from the strictures of its own theory in an act of metaphysical faith that rivals, for sheer credulity, anything seen in fundamentalist Christianity. Myself, I like my Christianity leveaned with a good does of Aristotelian rationalism. I am out of town for a few days, but I'll take this up when I return on Sunday, if anyone is still interested by then.
Rob, let's unpack your statement.
First, you claim Atheist are first and foremost materialist, and this materialism leads to non-belief. In reality, you have the chain of events all wrong. At our core, most are skeptics, and it is the lack of evidence for the supernatural, not some "faith" in the material, that leads to non-belief. A skeptic does not deny the possibility of anything out of hand without examining the evidence, or as is usually the case for metaphysical claims (metaphysics being that which is beyond science or observation, i.e. the supernatural) the total lack of evidence.
Next you asset, without evidence, that intelligent thought requires a supernatural freedom of the mind.
Why?
Neuroscience can measure the transmission of nerve impulses within the brain. They can detect the reaction to thought provoking stimuli and the accompanying changes in brain chemistry. Our ability to think is explained largely by chemistry. No supernatural (or as you would call it, metaphysical) explanation required.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I now think it's possible for a Christian to be a Christian Deist....
Think again. The Christian believes God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. When a deist comes to that belief, he is no longer a deist.
Steve.
And us agnostics just don't worry about it too much. If there is a god & he/she doesn't like the character of my soul, I'd have to believe that my soul (if there really is a soul) wouldn't be very happy in heaven....& besides, how does anybody really know if there's only two places to go? Heaven or hell??? There really should be more than two choices...
First, you claim Atheist are first and foremost materialist, and this materialism leads to non-belief. In reality, you have the chain of events all wrong. At our core, most are skeptics, and it is the lack of evidence for the supernatural, not some "faith" in the material, that leads to non-belief. A skeptic does not deny the possibility of anything out of hand without examining the evidence, or as is usually the case for metaphysical claims (metaphysics being that which is beyond science or observation, i.e. the supernatural) the total lack of evidence.
Atheists cannot avoid a materialist worldview. It doesn't matter whether they begin as skeptics or not. In fact, by beginning as a skeptic, they reject everything but the material. The "chain of events" you refer to is not necessarily the same for everyone. Atheists have not cornered the market on skepticism. You seem to think that if a person begins as a skeptic he will come to atheism. That can't be true because many Christians began as skeptics.
Steve.
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000) "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
I will never cease to be astonished at the erudition, intellectual accomplishment, ability to speak/write clearly and definitively, and the wisdom of many, many of the members. Then there are the rest of you poor losers who don't believe in God!
Terry
Nice ad hominem attack.
Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Sometimes I wonder what we're really debating in these threads. I read the following recently, a quote by someone who is undoubtedly much smarter than I am, and likely smarter than anyone posting on this thread:
Quote
"Atheism is the least plausible of all theologies. I mean, there are a lot of wild ones out there, but the one that clearly runs so contrary to what is possible, is atheism."
And this coming from someone with a solid scientific education who describes himself as a non-religious person. He grew up in a faith but rejected it and does not practice faith. If an intelligent, non-religious person can see how implausible atheism is, then maybe some of us haven't thought it through. Still, thinking it through to a position of theism would leave one very, very far from being a Christian.
Steve.
Steve, it's just an argument from Personal Incredulity, which is a very common logical fallacy.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
... watch how Sam Harris dismantles his metaphysics claims.
OK. Let's talk about logical fallacies. In equating the belief that Elvis is alive with the belief in metaphysical reality show Harris to be unserious. Certainly not all metaphysical claims can be assumed to be equal, as he does. The argument is ad hominem. To ridicule your opponent and to make the audience laugh at him is not winning the debate. It's to tell a joke.
Steve.
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000) "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
If deism is "the belief in God NOT based on revelation," then can someone be an adeist?
Seriously though, none of those definitions are adequate. 1. Many theists do not depend on revelation for their views. 2. Some of the classic arguments for God made by theists were not based on revelation. Example: St. Anselm offered as a logical proof for God, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Nothing in that statement is based on revelation, so in your definition that would make him a deist. He was certainly not a deist, and not merely a theist, but a full-fledged Christian. 3. And it can't quite be said that Christianity is theism. It's far more than that, and theism certainly is not Christianity -- though many talk as though a Christian is a theist and a theist is a Christian.
Steve.
Steve, If you believe in a God that listens to and answers your prayers, you are a Theist.
If you believe a god cast the die that put the universe in motion and walked away, you are a Deist.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Steve, If you believe in a God that listens to and answers your prayers, you are a Theist.
If you believe a god cast the die that put the universe in motion and walked away, you are a Deist.
You're telling me stuff I already know. The point was that the definition of a deist our friend DD offered is inadequate.
Steve.
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000) "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
CCCC, "I believe that our God is omniscient and omnipotent"
Do you believe that God can smite someone who displeases him? If you don't believe God would smite someone who displeases him is it ok if he gets one of his believers to smite them? A yes or no answer is ok, please don't quote Bible scripture.
I am not answering in terms of "displease", for what it might take to displease God to such an extent, and what His reason might be for smiting, are beyond my full comprehension.
But - do I "believe that God can smite someone"? Yes, I believe that He can. He is omnipotent.
"Is it OK if He gets one of His beleivers to smite them"? I am not equipped to pass judgement on what might be "OK" for God to do in achieving His purposes. He knows that - He is omniscient.
With regard to your request, rarely, if ever, do I quote Scripture verses/passages in these discussions. If a discussant is knowledgeable of the Scripture, there seems no need to quote. If the discussant is not knowledgeable of Scripture, such a quote is not likely to be useful or effective due to contextual matters - and disinterest.
Neuroscience can measure the transmission of nerve impulses within the brain. They can detect the reaction to thought provoking stimuli and the accompanying changes in brain chemistry. Our ability to think is explained largely by chemistry. No supernatural (or as you would call it, metaphysical) explanation required.
On what I know, I would not deny the first two statements. However, in no way do such facts (basic measurements/observations) begin to "explain" our ability to think - which is a very diverse and complex activity. Actually, compared to the two measurements/observations you cite there is a plethora of "non-scientific/non-chemistry" evidence regarding our ability to think. This thread, and this post, comprise some of that.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
No. Deism is the belief in a God who may have influenced the beginnings of the Universe, but exerts no influence upon the actual workings of the Universe beyond some initial creation act or event (for which He might be ultimately responsible).
BTW, Jefferson is often claimed to have been a Deist, but Jefferson also claimed that "almighty God hath created the mind free...", that "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever (speaking of the injustice of chattel slavery) and that "the mass of mankind was not born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them".
All of these quotes by Jefferson (and a myriad of others reflect the thought of a man who believed that the hand of God was actively at work in the Universe and in the affairs of men. In any event, the struggle is not between Deism and Theism. It is between belief and unbelief. Deism, properly understood, concedes every necessary thing to Theism with respect to the idea of God and the meaning of the idea of a Supreme Being in the public square and vice versa. Both beliefs stand in opposition to naturalistic materialism, or materialism. Both uanssisted reason (the "laws of nature") and divine revelation (the "laws of nature's God") stand upon the same ground and are in essential agreement as to what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. It was upon an appeal to both of these (essentially )non-contradictory (in the decisive respect) systems of belief that the Founders appealed (in addition "to the Supreme Judge of the Universe" for the "rectitude of their intentions"). As an aside, it would have been pointless for the Founders to appeal to God for the justness of their cause if they did not believe that the opinion of that God mattered, viz., that he exercised no influence upon the Universe. Jordan
I now think it's possible for a Christian to be a Christian Deist....
Think again. The Christian believes God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. When a deist comes to that belief, he is no longer a deist.
Steve.
Belief in Christ as God is not the point. The point is that the religion of a Deist is natural religion, i.e reason, versus revealed religion, in the case of a Christian, the Bible. Christians believe in God and that Christ is God because it's been revealed to them in the Bible.
Deists believe in God because of reason and natural theology.
I agree that being a Christian is tough with trying be a Deist too.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
