What reasoning allows for the transition from Deism to Theism?

[ChetSinger]

The deist notion of God still chooses to create a universe (and presumably could have chosen otherwise), and otherwise has personal attributes.

I agree with Silly Uncle Wayne. Deism was the name of an actual belief system in the 17th and 18th centuries and held by some the US founding fathers. The chief difference between the Deists and the Christians was the belief that the Deist God didn't intervene in his creation. He didn't produce miracles, for example.

So I think the OP's question is a good one. And to answer it, I think the transition from Deism to Christianity requires revelation from God.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree with Silly Uncle Wayne. Deism was the name of an actual belief system in the 17th and 18th centuries and held by some the US founding fathers. The chief difference between the Deists and the Christians was the belief that the Deist God didn't intervene in his creation. He didn't produce miracles, for example.

Saying deists did not believe in intervention is a tricky concept since most deists did believe in providence. They just were influenced by the rise of Newtonian physics and it's intellectual influence on the wider public.

The rejection of miracles has more to do with the influence of Hume's skepticism that a statement about how Deists believe God relates to the world.

I also don't think there was a hard line separating deists from orthodox Christians. Alot of deists like Victor Hugo simply rejected the Church's authority as central institution in society.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well... theist and atheist are mutually exclusive. Like symmetrical and asymmetrical.

If deists aren't theists, then they must be atheists.

Ah, now I see. I'm sure all the atheists would love to know that you think that they are all really deists. That'll go down reeeally well!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ah, now I see. I'm sure all the atheists would love to know that you think that they are all really deists. That'll go down reeeally well!

Well, no, we both already agreed that conclusion didn't sound right, and it follows directly from your statement that deists are not theists, so I think it's that statement of yours that is the problem.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well, no, we both already agreed that conclusion didn't sound right, and it follows directly from your statement that deists are not theists, so I think it's that statement of yours that is the problem.

Not really. Atheism is the 'disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods'.

Deism's definition assumes a belief in a God. So Atheism and Deism are also mutually exclusive. I have no problem with the concepts and their usage. I'm sure that if someone wanted they could refer to adeist. But if you start down that road you'd also need apantheist and apolytheist and so on, but I suspect most of your atheist colleagues would object to having to describe themselves as not all of those things individually (though many do seem to be desirous of making it clear that they don't believe in Thor and Zeus). You could also invent a new word to describe all the things you are not so atheismanddeismandpantheismandpolytheism, but it took me ages to write it out so good luck on getting it accepted by the wider public. I suspect the rest of us will just use the word atheist as it works perfectly well at the moment.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not really. Atheism is the 'disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods'.

Deism's definition assumes a belief in a God. So Atheism and Deism are also mutually exclusive. I have no problem with the concepts and their usage. I'm sure that if someone wanted they could refer to adeist. But if you start down that road you'd also need apantheist and apolytheist and so on, but I suspect most of your atheist colleagues would object to having to describe themselves as not all of those things individually (though many do seem to be desirous of making it clear that they don't believe in Thor and Zeus). You could also invent a new word to describe all the things you are not so atheismanddeismandpantheismandpolytheism, but it took me ages to write it out so good luck on getting it accepted by the wider public. I suspect the rest of us will just use the word atheist as it works perfectly well at the moment.

You originally said that deism and theism were mutually exclusive. But that doesn't feel right. They are both categories of god belief. In fact, I'd say deism is a subset of them. Both have god belief, but deism doesn't think its god interacts with the universe.

The fact that one can imagine a spectrum of interaction (completely non-interactive, comletely interactive and everything in-between) make them not mutually exclusive. It's like say red and orange are mutually exclusive.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not really. Atheism is the 'disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods'.

And the a- prefix is Greek for without. So the thing that a-theism is without is theism, namely "a belief in God or gods."

Deism's definition assumes a belief in a God.

Right, so Deism belongs in theism.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You originally said that deism and theism were mutually exclusive. But that doesn't feel right. They are both categories of god belief. In fact, I'd say deism is a subset of them. Both have god belief, but deism doesn't think its god interacts with the universe.

The fact that one can imagine a spectrum of interaction (completely non-interactive, comletely interactive and everything in-between) make them not mutually exclusive. It's like say red and orange are mutually exclusive.

Which means that atheism is also a subset of theism. after all they both have god belief, but atheism doesn't think there is any god whether it interacts with the universe or not

I said the terms are mutually exclusive because a god that both interacts with the universe and does not interact with the universe is a logical impossibility.

I have no problem with theism being used as an inclusive term normally, but not when it is being refined down to specifics and that is what this thread is about - the distinctiveness of theism and deism.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And the a- prefix is Greek for without. So the thing that a-theism is without is theism, namely "a belief in God or gods."

Well, hey, you were the one who thought that deism was a part of atheism, which didn't make sense to me. If you are confused, it seems to be a confusion of your own making after all I only said that theism and deism were mutually exclusive, this thread wasn't about atheism at all (guess you were feeling left out )

 

[Tinker Grey]

Which means that atheism is also a subset of theism. after all they both have god belief, but atheism doesn't think there is any god whether it interacts with the universe or not

I said the terms are mutually exclusive because a god that both interacts with the universe and does not interact with the universe is a logical impossibility.

I have no problem with theism being used as an inclusive term normally, but not when it is being refined down to specifics and that is what this thread is about - the distinctiveness of theism and deism.

No. Atheists lack a god belief.

Regardless of what this thread is about, deism and theism aren't "mutually exclusive", they're just different.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I only said that theism and deism were mutually exclusive

And a-theism is literally "without theism". So if deists aren't theists, the only place they can be is with atheists. As we agree, this doesn't make sense, therefore neither does the thing I quoted.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No. Atheists lack a god belief.

Regardless of what this thread is about, deism and theism aren't "mutually exclusive", they're just different.

A deistic god cannot be a theistic god unless it intervenes in the universe at which point it ceases to be a deistic god.

So deists lack an interventionist god. I really am at a loss to understand why this worries you. The only people who've accused atheists of being deists are atheists, I don't think either deists or theists would consider that a good definition of atheism.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And a-theism is literally "without theism". So if deists aren't theists, the only place they can be is with atheists. As we agree, this doesn't make sense, therefore neither does the thing I quoted.

It is not possible for a car to both be a red and blue. The colours are not the same and so mutually exclusive.

So by your reasoning a van that is not red must be a blue car!

Crazy and definitely not logical.

And actually a-theism is not literally "without theism" it is not (or no) god. (if you go back through the thread this distinction arose because someone pointed out the greek for god was theos)

 

[Tinker Grey]

A deistic god cannot be a theistic god unless it intervenes in the universe at which point it ceases to be a deistic god.

So deists lack an interventionist god. I really am at a loss to understand why this worries you. The only people who've accused atheists of being deists are atheists, I don't think either deists or theists would consider that a good definition of atheism.

I've never seen an atheist call another atheist a deist. I could imagine it if I encountered a person who claimed to be an atheist but still thought there might be a higher power.

This exchange has been about your use of the phrase "mutually exclusive" -- that's it. I explained why it doesn't make sense as has essentialsaltes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And actually a-theism is not literally "without theism" it is not (or no) god.

No, you had it right the first time.

Not really. Atheism is the 'disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods'.

Theism is a belief in gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Deism is also a belief in gods. Deism is therefore a subset of theism.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The deist notion of God still chooses to create a universe (and presumably could have chosen otherwise), and otherwise has personal attributes.

Evidence? Personal beings like to communicate, in fact must communicate otherwise they are not personal. There is no evidence that any true Deist claims that their god has communicated with anyone.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You originally said that deism and theism were mutually exclusive. But that doesn't feel right. They are both categories of god belief. In fact, I'd say deism is a subset of them. Both have god belief, but deism doesn't think its god interacts with the universe.

Feelings are not a rational basis for argumentation. What you are saying is that it is possible for a god to both interact with the universe and not interact with the universe. Essentially you are saying that

The fact that one can imagine a spectrum of interaction (completely non-interactive, comletely interactive and everything in-between) make them not mutually exclusive. It's like say red and orange are mutually exclusive.

But one could also imagine a spectrum of deity from zero to full, which would mean that atheism is no longer mutually exclusive with theism (or even deism).

I refer to that fount of useful info known as Wikipedia: "In logic and probability theory, two events are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both occur at the same time"

Apply this logically and you have mutual exclusivity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Feelings are not a rational basis for argumentation. What you are saying is that it is possible for a god to both interact with the universe and not interact with the universe. Essentially you are saying that



But one could also imagine a spectrum of deity from zero to full, which would mean that atheism is no longer mutually exclusive with theism (or even deism).

I refer to that fount of useful info known as Wikipedia: "In logic and probability theory, two events are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both occur at the same time"

Apply this logically and you have mutual exclusivity.

As both @essentialsaltes and I indicated, one can be a theist and a deist at the same time. Deism is a subset of theism. QED.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

As both @essentialsaltes and I indicated, one can be a theist and a deist at the same time. Deism is a subset of theism. QED.

Safety in numbers, eh? Unfortunately you are both arguing that X = 0 and X > 0 are both true.

Either the God you don't believe in can interact with the universe or he can't but to argue that it is possible for him to do both is illogical. The moment God interacts he has moved out deism and into theism and he can never go back.

Atheism doesn't care about whether he interacts or not it is in opposition to the God part not the interaction part.