Deism

[gord44]

I feel like I am a punch drunk boxer in the 5th round. Every time I try to get off the ropes Paine lays another shot into my swollen face. Soon I will be down for the count.

 

[Zoness]

Thomas Paine is fantastic.

Thomas Hobbes is too. Reading the Leviathan was basically my political and philosophical awakening.

Edit: Here is a good list of Paine's short essays.

 

[gord44]

Thanks for the link. This Paine guy is talking crazy and I likes it.

 

[Zoness]

Thanks for the link. This Paine guy is talking crazy and I likes it.

That's kind of how I felt when I started reading Leviathan years ago. It was a bunch of stuff; just words at first and then it just sort of clicked with me. It's not so much about what I agreed and disagreed with but it made me acutely aware of the world's political structures and why they do what they do. That was more of a political thing.

Paine on the other hand is whole different experience. It's quite something else.

 

[gord44]

You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

Great quote.

 

[light upon light]

Almost any time somebody talks about "God", they are essentially picturing a human being in terms of thought processes, motivations, emotions, goals... well, just about anything.

That's always seemed bizarre to me too.

There are sophisticated understandings of God in many religious writings (basically as One without a second, the ground of being, Being-awareness, Unknowable Essence and the like) which don't postulate particular anthropomorphic characteristics to God, or even eschew them as false and in error.

I am always surprised when I find notions of God that are full of human-style attributes.

 

[gord44]

Indeed friend.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I believe in that an ultimate great being exists. He encompasses all possible greatness and misses no greatness. I think this knowledge is properly basic, and it's a mystic faith that can be hard to hold on to.

And due to what I believe about greatness, I also believe this being to be kind. And because I believe it to be kind, I do believe in an after life.

I also do believe he interferes in this world, but only spiritually. For example, if we do good, he increases goodness in our souls.

I don't believe he changes physical events or actually talks to people though.

 

[gord44]

I believe in that an ultimate great being exists. He encompasses all possible greatness and misses no greatness. I think this knowledge is properly basic, and it's a mystic faith that can be hard to hold on to.

And due to what I believe about greatness, I also believe this being to be kind. And because I believe it to be kind, I do believe in an after life.

I also do believe he interferes in this world, but only spiritually. For example, if we do good, he increases goodness in our souls.

I don't believe he changes physical events or actually talks to people though.

Interesting post.

 

[Chesterton]

The thing about deism is I think that if there were a creative mind responsible for the universe, it seems like it would have to have attributes or personality in some way. And the anthropomorphism complaint seems backwards to me. If a personal mind created, it seems natural to me that the mind would impart some of itself to the thing created. Aside from abstract art, humans create representations of real things, including themselves. Of course Christians don't believe God has a body (Jane, this is addressed to you) - the old man in the sky artwork is symbolic; stuff like sitting on a cloud indicates that He is above us (in all senses) and the white beard indicates age which symbolizes wisdom.

Interesting.

Deists also have the coolest symbol here!

I've always thought the deist and atheist symbols should be switched. The brain symbol should represent a mind (deist belief) and the atom symbol should represent matter (atheist belief).

 

[AskTheFamily]

I've always thought the deist and atheist symbols should be switched. The brain symbol should represent a mind (deist belief) and the atom symbol should represent matter (atheist belief).

That wouldn't do justice for me. Logic tells me God doesn't exist but my heart tells me he does.

As for as rationality goes...I think God most likely doesn't exist by use of reason. There is arguments against God and they are strong. As far the heart goes, this is where I believe in God and feel connected to him.

 

[dcalling]

That wouldn't do justice for me. Logic tells me God doesn't exist but my heart tells me he does.

As for as rationality goes...I think God most likely doesn't exist by use of reason. There is arguments against God and they are strong. As far the heart goes, this is where I believe in God and feel connected to him.

Interesting, Logic tells me God must exists. I wonder what arguments against God are that strong, because there is almost no way to prove God exists or not.

 

[dcalling]

What an evening. I felt the last oppressive vestige of religion crumble before my eyes. I feel a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I traded one religion for another when I left Christianity and explored Islam. Last night I threw that away too. I don't know why it took so long to realize one can believe in God without having to swallow myths and thousand year old ideas hook, line and sinker. It feels good to think freely again and not have your mind oppressed with religious thought that tells you one thing even though your mind desperately tells you something different.

I thank you all for your info and for Chesterton for starting the thread.

Amazing! May I ask what made you trade Christianity for Islam, and what made you trade both for Deism?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I believe in that an ultimate great being exists. He encompasses all possible greatness and misses no greatness.

Here's my beef with projections such as these:

What exactly constitutes "greatness" (or "positive qualities", as another variation of this particular "proof" defines it)? To me, "greatness" signifies a value judgment, and value judgments - while certainly not random - demand a judging subject who applies certain criteria. No matter how closely and pragmatically you define those criteria, the end result will always be a judgment, and always depend on subjects making them.
For example, we measure benevolence in relation to the positive effects we experience ourselves (in relation to us, the environment, etc.). If there was a species that hunted us for food and ate our children, we'd certainly not consider it benevolent - just as cattle would not necessarily consider us to be benign if they had the language to express their impression of a slaughterhouse.
A non-human sapient species would, in turn, measure its own "greatness" in terms that relate to itself.

Morality may not be random (after all, our codes of conduct hinge on producing a functional society), but what is good-for-us is not necessarily good-for-others. "Outsourcing" the problem to an external, and potentially divine, judge does nothing to eliminate this fundamental problem. We are talking about (inter-)subjective categories.

 

[lost999]

Interesting, Logic tells me God must exists. I wonder what arguments against God are that strong, because there is almost no way to prove God exists or not.

I share the same sentiments. I'm also interested in seeing this arguement for the non-existence of God that is so compelling.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I share the same sentiments. I'm also interested in seeing this arguement for the non-existence of God that is so compelling.

Well, the anthropomorphism and the rather simplistic analogies ("a painting needs a painter, so those natural water crystals must have been designed by an artist as well - all hail the Snow Queen and her crystal-manufacturing court!") should be a strong indicator in and of themselves.

I am not discounting the possibility that this universe was "created", or that there could be entities so intelligent and powerful that we are little more than amoebae by comparison. But "God" is conceived as a person by the very definition of the term, and as such strikes me as little more than Man projecting himself upon everything, as he is wont to do.

Just look at how myths all across the globe operate: people see an unusual rock formation, and they instantly declare that it's the remnant of an artificial structure made by giants, gods, elves, or what have you. People detect patterns in nature (annual floods, rainy season, etc.), and they instantly attribute it to a human-like intelligence orchestrating events, sacrificing chickens to the "river spirit" to please spare their village. People see one family succumbing to a particularly bad case of influenza, and another remaining uninfected, and they attribute it to supernatural moral judgment, with the deceased family *clearly* being guilty of some misdemeanour while the spared ones are equally *obviously* exalted for some extraordinary virtue.

 

[lost999]

Well, the anthropomorphism and the rather simplistic analogies ("a painting needs a painter, so those natural water crystals must have been designed by an artist as well - all hail the Snow Queen and her crystal-manufacturing court!") should be a strong indicator in and of themselves.

I am not discounting the possibility that this universe was "created", or that there could be entities so intelligent and powerful that we are little more than amoebae by comparison. But "God" is conceived as a person by the very definition of the term, and as such strikes me as little more than Man projecting himself upon everything, as he is wont to do.

Just look at how myths all across the globe operate: people see an unusual rock formation, and they instantly declare that it's the remnant of an artificial structure made by giants, gods, elves, or what have you. People detect patterns in nature (annual floods, rainy season, etc.), and they instantly attribute it to a human-like intelligence orchestrating events, sacrificing chickens to the "river spirit" to please spare their village. People see one family succumbing to a particularly bad case of influenza, and another remaining uninfected, and they attribute it to supernatural moral judgment, with the deceased family *clearly* being guilty of some misdemeanour while the spared ones are equally *obviously* exalted for some extraordinary virtue.

My personal opinion, is that when you look at the complexities of living organisms, and their bio-systems, it is justifiable to infer a Designer. How the Designer did it (whether through evolution or special creation) is debatable. I don't believe it is reasonable to believe that non-intelligence can create complexities, as we see in living organisms. This type of design supersedes anything we see in a painting. Even on the atomic level; I don't believe quarks could have assembled themselves into to sub-atomic particles, creating atoms, with all the correct forces to hold them together.

I think this is different than experiencing patterns.

As for the anthropomorphism, humanity has assigned human like characteristics to God through the ages, but I personally believe that God has no gender, or humanlike features. God is something that we cannot comprehend, so we assign the only characteristics that we know. This doesn't infer God doesn't exists, it is just a result of our limited understanding.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Capital G God is said to be ultimately great that he misses no greatness. One problem is why didn't this being create a perfect world where there is no pain and suffering. Why did he create the world with evil in it and does nothing about it. If he can create paradise in the next world, why didn't he start off with it in this world. Saying things like it's for character building has it's own problems, because many children die without a chance of character building. People who immensely suffer in third world countries don't develop more character then those who don't suffer.

Aside from that, if we go on the notion that God must be ultimately great, there is also the problem that God did nothing to earn his greatness. He was simply all great. This is while humans have to earn their greatness and praise. So what is higher praise, unearned or earned? This is another problem.

There is also the problem that when we were kids, we have no strong faith other then following what our parents taught us as true. We simply followed. If that was the basis to our faith in God, when and how did it change?

 

[dcalling]

Capital G God is said to be ultimately great that he misses no greatness. One problem is why didn't this being create a perfect world where there is no pain and suffering. Why did he create the world with evil in it and does nothing about it. If he can create paradise in the next world, why didn't he start off with it in this world. Saying things like it's for character building has it's own problems, because many children die without a chance of character building. People who immensely suffer in third world countries don't develop more character then those who don't suffer.

Aside from that, if we go on the notion that God must be ultimately great, there is also the problem that God did nothing to earn his greatness. He was simply all great. This is while humans have to earn their greatness and praise. So what is higher praise, unearned or earned? This is another problem.

There is also the problem that when we were kids, we have no strong faith other then following what our parents taught us as true. We simply followed. If that was the basis to our faith in God, when and how did it change?

AskTheFamily,

I don't think God is described as misses no greatness in the Bible. Nothing is all powerful. In the Bible God is described as the most powerful being that knows almost every detail and can do wonders.

And we know he loves righteousness and dislikes sin.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Well God is at least believed to be good and benevolent. The problem of suffering and evil still remains.

He also believed to be greater then humans and I showed a problem with that with earned praise vs unearned praise.