I would apologize for the exensive confusion over the definitions of theism and deism, let me say once and for all that the definition of theism and deism I was working with when I began this thread was that deism was the belief in an intelligent creator, while theism was the belief in a directly interventionist, personal, even loving God. And I should also clarify that I understand these two beliefs are not mutually exclusive, in fact in order to be a theist you must obviously be a deist as well. My question then is what reasonable arguments there are for the intellectual transition from deism to theism, as ever single mainstream religion, including Christianity, does.Theism as defined in the Merriam-Webster below. Including the part you failed to quote. IMO the piece of their definition you provided which defines it as including fewer religious POV's than Monotheism would, is incorrect and M-W is wrong to include that in the definition. When you look up monotheism in M-W the definition is "the belief that there is only one God.". It is quite strange to have a less inclusive definition for a more general term( theism) than it is for a subset of that term (monotheism). Using Theism to represent only Abrahamic style Monotheism is simply wrong from my perspective. IMO one cannot contrast Deism to Theism as Deism is a subset of Theism. To me, your question makes no more sense than asking What reasoning allows for the transition from Belgians to Human Beings. If you wish to ask people how a Deist could use reason to see the Creator as a benevolent interventionist God, don't conflate bother using the word theism as both Deism and the monotheistic religions where God is a loving interventionist are theists in nature. The opposite of theism is atheism not deism. Deists are theists they are not atheists, nor are they agnostic.
theism
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
the·ism | \ ˈthē-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of theism
: belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
To answer your question as I believe you intended it to be asked. One can use reason to convince oneself of anything one decides to convince oneself of. Reason always starts with a set of assumptions. Let us assume that for the most part we have similar sets of basic assumptions already in common between Deist and monotheists of the loving interventionist God types before continuing further. From there, if one assumes a Creator, as Deism does, Then one only might also assume that a Creator would be interested in what that Creator created using the reason that otherwise why create at all? Then one can reason that if one is interested in something because one took the time and effort to cause it to be, one is likely to care about it rather than be indifferent toward it and at the least be curious as to what it is up to. It is not likely that one would create something just to be scornful of it or to be hateful toward it. So, if one is interested enough to create a thing and curious enough to want to follow its progress, one is also likely to be inclined to see to it that it does not come to any lasting harm. If that is the case then one would likely be inclined to interact with one's creation for the good of that creation.
I would respond to your argument on this subject as follows; firstly, your reasoning for the logical link between deism and theism seems deeply flawed to me. It seems that you are conflating an intelligent creator with a human creator, which is simply an assumption with no real reason for believing. After all, if the universe were created by intelligent design, that does not mean that humanity has some special place in that design, simply because the creator, as you say, would be interested in something he/she/it created. Even if I were to agree with you that an intelligent creator must be interested in his creations (which he doesn't), it still doesn't get us to the point where a God tells us what to eat or not to eat, when or how to engage in sexual activities, what days to keep holy, which people are going to be saved forever and which ones will be damned forever, etc. In short, the furthered conclusions following an interested creator simply don't lead to the complex and often contradictory religious practices which have sprung up over millenia.
Secondly, it seems that history itself contradicts your assumptions that an intelligent creator must be interested in his creations, and must have a positive interest in them. According to various scientists, including many renowned Christian ones, our species is in fact at least 100,000 years old. And for the vast majority of these 100,000 years, it is known fact that life was absolutely hellish compred to what it has been in the last one or two thousand years alone, with predation, disease, natural disasters, etc, all appearing as total mysteries and terrifying threats. In short, I further fail to understand how your argument stands when confronted with the stark reality that it seems this intelligent creator only began to intervene in his/her/its earthly creations after nearly a 100,000 years of misery and suffering.
Upvote
0