What reasoning allows for the transition from Deism to Theism?

SocratesNow

Active Member
Apr 6, 2020
55
12
39
Ammon
✟10,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
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 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.

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

SocratesNow

Active Member
Apr 6, 2020
55
12
39
Ammon
✟10,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I believe the earliest known monotheism was introduced in Egypt by Akenhaten in the 1300 BC era. As I recall, the Hebrews didn't become monotheists until about 1000 BC. But the OT God is only loving and forgiving towards those who properly obey and revere him. The Bible states God is jealous and can be angry, and vindictive towards those who worship other gods and ignore his commandments.

I suspect the idea of one god who is involved in the world, has a loving nature, but demands righteousness and obedience is based in 2 aspects of human psychology:

1) Belief in a caring and benevolent supreme being provides peace of mind. Especially in the ancient world--when everyday life was hard and uncertain--it's comforting to believe in an all-powerful deity who loves you and will protect you. Which basically is wishful thinking.

2) Belief in an authoritarian, imperious, and fearful supreme being, who punishes wrongdoers comes from a need to maintain social order. I think it was largely invented by the priestly class to keep the tribe well-behaved and cohesive. (The word religion derives from the Latin re-ligare, to tie together.) It exists to reinforce tribal bonds. And it keeps the priesthood in power.
I would agree with almost everything you said. It seems that no matter how hard it is attempted to refute it, the Bible's millenia-old morals and standards shine through even today. Some verses which show this might include Exodus 15:3, "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.", as well as when God orders Moses to slaughter men, women, and children soon after he receives the ten commandments from Mount Sinai.
It's also fascinating to me how many if not most religious individuals hold up the explanatory value of the theory of God as evidence of its validity, when there is abundant, objective evidence which describes how, as you pointed out, we are psychologically inclined to believe in God, and there is an ever growing body of science which creates an increasingly explanatory model of the universe, its creation, and its functions, without the existence of God as a necessary factor.
 
Upvote 0

SocratesNow

Active Member
Apr 6, 2020
55
12
39
Ammon
✟10,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Ok. That's somewhat reasonable, but I was just wondering if you were paying attention to the overall context in which you've embedded the subject of your thread ... :dontcare:
I would love to continue this discussion, but I'm afraid I'm not sure what productive dialogue is going to arise out of continual, vague questions such as this one, if you have an argument you'd like to propose, or disagree with an argument I've made, I'd love to hear that!
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,734
✟247,498.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think that a Deist would say that he/she does find evidence of the existence of a creator/god
There has never been presented any solid evidence for the existence of any god, though.
Some people use philosophical arguments
e.g. the cosmological argument - which isn't evidence, it is a philosophical pondering.


and the universe behaves as that creator/god desined it to behave before ignoring it thereafter.
But this is equivalent to the case where there is no god and the universe behaves as if there is no god intervening or orchestrating. In both cases the "laws of physics" control all events. As solid laws without intent, without purpose.
Saying that god set it up this way doesn't change the stance that the universe operates as if a god isn't there.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would love to continue this discussion, but I'm afraid I'm not sure what productive dialogue is going to arise out of continual, vague questions such as this one, if you have an argument you'd like to propose, or disagree with an argument I've made, I'd love to hear that!

Sorry for the vagueness. How about this: your subject isn't axiological, so it should be moved elsewhere within Christian Forums to a more appropriate discussion spot, right? Maybe something like, 'World Religions,' or something? :dontcare:

...unless of course you can identify some kind of turpitude that may be involved in the morality of those (like me) who might instead think it's more reasonable to believe in Christianity over and above something like Deism.

[But yes, yes, yes, we already know--there's no clear and discernible Philosophy Section in which anyone here can more easily create a Philosophy of Religion 'type' discussion, even though it can be still technically be done ...]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's also fascinating to me how many if not most religious individuals hold up the explanatory value of the theory of God as evidence of its validity, when there is abundant, objective evidence which describes how, as you pointed out, we are psychologically inclined to believe in God, and there is an ever growing body of science which creates an increasingly explanatory model of the universe, its creation, and its functions, without the existence of God as a necessary factor.

Absolutely. It's a virtual certainty that human beings will invoke gods and other supernatural entities. Our brains evolved to seek reasons and explanations. When a natural causation isn't obvious, we create a supernatural one. Every society has done this. Things like weather, illness, floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic activity, the rise and fall of the tides, the perceived motions of the sun, moon, and stars, and many other events were at one time all thought to be products of various gods, spirits, or other supernatural forces. But as our understanding has improved, we know that all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural causation has never been valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why should anyone accept a supernatural explanation for the many, many things we still don't know?

BTW: To me the sheer multiplicity of gods that different cultures have worshiped is evidence against one universal, sovereign god. If such a god really existed, who desired a relationship with mankind, why wouldn't everyone know and worship the same god? It makes no sense that the one true god wouldn't make himself clearly known to everyone. Why would s(he) allow all this confusion?
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

First, You may disagree with my assumptions but you asked for reasoning and I gave you reasoning. Your disagreeing with my assumptions because you prefer different assumptions does not make my reasoning invalid. I am not conflating anything. A Creator does not have to be human to conform to the same rationale as a human would. I see no reason why a Creator would not be interested in that Creator's creation. If not then you should have an answer for the question I posed earlier "Why Create at all?"

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.

Your question did not mention humans having a special place. You asked what reasoning would allow for a transition between Deism and a theism that believed in a interventionist, loving God. To believe in an interventionist loving God one does not have to think that humans have a special place. Did you intend your question to be something more like "Why would a Deist become a Christian or Muslim Or Jew?" or did you intend the question you asked?

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.

Once again the goal posts seem to be moving on what the question actually is. Do you want to know the reasoning one would use in order to move from believing in an extremely apathetic clockmaker to a clockmaker that wanted to make sure the clock was working as he /she designed it and therefore kept a watch(no pun intended) on that clock and tinkered with it when he/she considered it to be advantageous? OR are you asking a completely different question?

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.

History does not contradict that assumption any more than it contradicts the assumption that there is any other kind of creator. You as are assuming that your assumptions about the wrold are true and m that the assumptions I presented earlier asre false. You have presented no proof that is the case.

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 compared 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.

What constitutes "absolutely hellish" is a matter of opinion. Do Deists believe in hell? Your opinion of what is hellish is purely subjective but I see the reasoning behind it. I can see why one would reason that if there is a lot of predation , disease, natural disasters etc. one might consider things to be absolutely hellish. I don't agree with the label but I see your reasoning. There also was as far as we can trace back beauty and harmony and kindness and sacrifice and love and friendship and prosperity and innovation as well as all that bad stuff. I don't see the universe as a terrible place but as a place of wonder that encompasses both the terrible and the sublime. Now, IMO it is entirely possible for either a Deist or an interventionist Deity to have created that. It is even possible that it was not created but always was and always will be. The one thing I cannot see as possible is that it wasn't but somehow came to be out of nothing. That is because there is no evidence of anyone ever having experienced witnessing such a thing having happened and so I assume it is not possible. Like all assumptions though to is not provable but only seen as self evident by the one doing the assuming.

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.

I don't see why you assume that. There is nothing that proves it. BTW whether the argument I gave stands or not is not relevant to the question. The question did not ask us to make a case that would convince a Deist to transition to a non Deist POV but for reasoning that would allow it.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There has never been presented any solid evidence for the existence of any god, though.
Some people use philosophical arguments
e.g. the cosmological argument - which isn't evidence, it is a philosophical pondering.

Some people do . Deists do so pretty much exclusively. Other religious thinkers rely upon witnesses and first and second person narratives. They consider them solid but I understand why you do not.


But this is equivalent to the case where there is no god and the universe behaves as if there is no god intervening or orchestrating. In both cases the "laws of physics" control all events. As solid laws without intent, without purpose.
Saying that god set it up this way doesn't change the stance that the universe operates as if a god isn't there.

That it behaves in any way at all tells us something. It behaves as if there are controlling principles and so one could argue that it is not any more unreasonable to assume an intelligent designer than it is to assume otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

Jok

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2019
774
658
47
Indiana
✟42,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
we know that all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural causation has never been valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why should anyone accept a supernatural explanation for the many, many things we still don't know?
Why are you talking about causation of natural phenomena, and the supernatural in the same thought? Supernatural occurrences fall outside of the scientific method. It is not a repeatable event that can be observed over & over again and subjected to predictions. A miracle is a one & done deviation from that natural phenomena. It seems like you’re knocking it for not being something that it doesn’t even claim to be.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,734
✟247,498.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Other religious thinkers rely upon witnesses and first and second person narratives. They consider them solid but I understand why you do not.
I presume that religious thinkers accept witness accounts and narratives when it conforms to their already held beliefs and reject witness accounts and narratives when it conflicts with their already held beliefs.

That it behaves in any way at all tells us something. It behaves as if there are controlling principles and so one could argue that it is not any more unreasonable to assume an intelligent designer than it is to assume otherwise.
We don't need to assume though.

We know (K)E = M.v Kinetic Energy = mass x velocity because people have done this experiment over and over and it has always proven to be correct.
We don't know how this equation came to be a controlling principle, we just know that it has proven to be correct.
We don't say "god did it" and we don't say "something other than god did it"
We just accept that the formula seems to be true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SocratesNow

Active Member
Apr 6, 2020
55
12
39
Ammon
✟10,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Absolutely. It's a virtual certainty that human beings will invoke gods and other supernatural entities. Our brains evolved to seek reasons and explanations. When a natural causation isn't obvious, we create a supernatural one. Every society has done this. Things like weather, illness, floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic activity, the rise and fall of the tides, the perceived motions of the sun, moon, and stars, and many other events were at one time all thought to be products of various gods, spirits, or other supernatural forces. But as our understanding has improved, we know that all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural causation has never been valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why should anyone accept a supernatural explanation for the many, many things we still don't know?

BTW: To me the sheer multiplicity of gods that different cultures have worshiped is evidence against one universal, sovereign god. If such a god really existed, who desired a relationship with mankind, why wouldn't everyone know and worship the same god? It makes no sense that the one true god wouldn't make himself clearly known to everyone. Why would s(he) allow all this confusion?
I couldn't agree more. It's nice to see another like-minded individual on these forums. :)
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,734
✟247,498.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Every society has done this. Things like weather, illness, floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic activity,
I think it is because people don't like not having control.

The volcano is about to erupt, what can we do?
Well, it must be because we have angered the gods, we must please them to calm them down.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why are you talking about causation of natural phenomena, and the supernatural in the same thought? Supernatural occurrences fall outside of the scientific method. It is not a repeatable event that can be observed over & over again and subjected to predictions. A miracle is a one & done deviation from that natural phenomena. It seems like you’re knocking it for not being something that it doesn’t even claim to be.

Religious believers today still claim supernatural causation for natural phenomena which aren't yet understood. You must be familiar with the "intelligent design" conjecture. To many people, it's incomprehensible how complex living organisms could have developed spontaneously by natural chemical processes. So they conclude that there must be some intelligent creative entity with supernatural powers who is responsible. For the ancient Hebrews, it was the god known by the Tetragammaton, Yahweh. For the natives of Alaska and British Columbia, it was the Great Raven who created the Earth and all lifeforms. Just 2 of hundreds, if not thousands of creator gods. All different gods. But the same thought process.
 
Upvote 0

Jok

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2019
774
658
47
Indiana
✟42,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Religious believers today still claim supernatural causation for natural phenomena which aren't yet understood. You must be familiar with the "intelligent design" conjecture. To many people, it's incomprehensible how complex living organisms could have developed spontaneously by natural chemical processes. So they conclude that there must be some intelligent creative entity with supernatural powers who is responsible. For the ancient Hebrews, it was the god known by the Tetragammaton, Yahweh. For the natives of Alaska and British Columbia, it was the Great Raven who created the Earth and all lifeforms. Just 2 of hundreds, if not thousands of creator gods. All different gods. But the same thought process.
Oh ok, I thought you were going somewhere else with that. You know what, I just deleted my reply, I think I got myself spun around between these two forums by the OP with the general God proofs and the deism to theism threads lol
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Maybe we can prove that deism and theism are identical. For example, let's say we can prove that freewill is an illusion. From a human perspective it might appear that God is responding to our choices, but maybe the past, present, and future were all completely defined at the creation. Therefore deism and theism are identical.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
The debate about God's existence is a common one. However, one issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed with enough focus, is the question of what arguments can be used to show how the belief that there was a first creator, an intelligent designer of the universe, can be reasonably translated into a belief in a theistic, or directly and lovingly interventionist God. I'm curious what all of your opinions are on this question, and hope to allow for some productive discussion in seeking the truth of this matter!

To me deism makes little sense if one assumes there was a purpose to the creation of the universe. Why create it and then disappear? Disappear, where to? The deistic god is a convenient explanation for beginnings but doesn't go any further than that. A theistic god on the other hand, assuming it is the creator would be overseeing that creation, without necessarily being part of it. The Deistic creator makes it seem like the creation is an afterthought, or a mistake - serving no purpose, but a theistic one (whichever that is) assumes a purpose to the creation.

Theism is more logical than deism.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
To me deism makes little sense if one assumes there was a purpose to the creation of the universe. Why create it and then disappear? Disappear, where to? The deistic god is a convenient explanation for beginnings but doesn't go any further than that. A theistic god on the other hand, assuming it is the creator would be overseeing that creation, without necessarily being part of it. The Deistic creator makes it seem like the creation is an afterthought, or a mistake - serving no purpose, but a theistic one (whichever that is) assumes a purpose to the creation.

Theism is more logical than deism.
Imagine God is Johnny Appleseed ( Johnny Appleseed - Wikipedia ). He plants an apple tree, but he doesn't remain to watch it grow and prune it and so forth. He moves along and plants more apple trees.

Does that mean that the apple trees had no purpose?

Ironically the same could be said of the Apostle Paul. He planted churches, but he didn't stay to nurture them. Yet those churches surely had a purpose to Paul.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Imagine God is Johnny Appleseed ( Johnny Appleseed - Wikipedia ). He plants an apple tree, but he doesn't remain to watch it grow and prune it and so forth. He moves along and plants more apple trees.

Does that mean that the apple trees had no purpose?

Ironically the same could be said of the Apostle Paul. He planted churches, but he didn't stay to nurture them. Yet those churches surely had a purpose to Paul.

Interesting thought. Paul didn't stick around but he did remain interested and involved in many of the churches he started. He wrote letters, commended people, talked about mutual friends, even wrote to those churches that he didn't start.

Paul is not a good comparison for Deism. The Deistic God has no further involvement in his creation.

According to the aforementioned Wikapedia article, JA 'returned every year or two to tend the nursery.' So I don't think he is a good match for deism either :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Interesting thought. Paul didn't stick around but he did remain interested and involved in many of the churches he started. He wrote letters, commended people, talked about mutual friends, even wrote to those churches that he didn't start.

Paul is not a good comparison for Deism. The Deistic God has no further involvement in his creation.

According to the aforementioned Wikapedia article, JA 'returned every year or two to tend the nursery.' So I don't think he is a good match for deism either :)
Here is another idea to consider. On a practical level, deism claims that everything that happens can be explained by the laws of nature. For the deist, if Moses parted the Red Sea then there must be a strictly scientific explanation.

However, deism doesn't mean that God isn't intimately involved in the contemporary world. An analogy would be when somebody buries a time capsule for future discovery. God may have buried things in the universe at the time of creation that are only today having their intended effect on us. They can all be explained as coincidences within the laws of nature, but they might be more than that.

Also, if God transcends nature then he transcends the time that we experience in this universe. The old man on the cloud that is the usual artistic depiction of God is a being living in this universe's time, but God is assumed to have created this universe's time.

In other words, the distinction between deism and theism may disappear if we remind ourselves that God transcends the time that we know.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0