What reasoning allows for the transition from Deism to Theism?

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

I don't think so. Unless I've misunderstood deism, the Deist God creates and then is no longer involved.

If we see this like a giant domino toppling set-up, the deistic God sits it up and hits the first domino and then goes away. In this scenario the dominos do what they were set up to do. Everything occurs just as the deistic God designed it, but they cannot get involved because to do so is to change everything about their creation.

On the other hand, the theistic God could still have the set-up and start but can have the creator also intervening to change the flow of the domino toppling at any point, causing the whole pattern to change. This theistic God is both transcending time and involved in it.

We will always find similarities between different ideas of Gods, but that doesn't mean that they are the same concept.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know that it amounts to an argument, per se, but many (most?) religions rely on divine revelation.

This is mostly true only in the context of Abrahamic monotheism. So-called Dharmic religions are based on natural law, not revelation. If they do have anything like revelation, it's of secondary importance and doesn't have the exclusivist emphasis of monotheism.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

French and English Deism had nothing to do with putting limits on how God relates to the world. It was a kind of liberal movement that grew out of the Abrahamic tradition, and influenced things like English Unitarianism and the Hindu Brahmo Samaj movement. Underlying it all was skepticism of traditional authority, and a desire to ground religion more concretely in human experience.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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!

There are a few lines of evidence that point to the creator being the Christian God. First is the nature of the universe. We know that generally when someone creates something especially artistic creations, aspects of the creator are incorporated into the creation. An example is how art experts use those aspects and characteristics to determine if some piece of artwork is a forgery or not. They know that certain artists have certain distinctive characteristics that are part of the work they create. To determine what caused the universe, we notice that the Christian God is a diversity within a unity, ie His Triune nature. A careful look at the universe shows that that characteristic is also one of the fundamental characteristics of the universe, it also is a diversity within a unity. This most likely is God's fingerprint, showing that a purely unified god like the deist god or Allah could not be the creator of the universe. There are other characteristics that also point to the Christian God that I can talk about if you want.

 

[FireDragon76]

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!

Deism is problematic because it posits a personal being as the first cause, when I don't see any good reason to assume that a first cause must necessarily be personal. Especially if you reject a concept such as divine revelation.

 

[Caliban]

30 pages which went nowhere? You wouldn't be making the assumption that because nobody was converted to another way of thinking, that the conversation went nowhere would you?

Many of these conversations degrade into ad hominem or sentence fragments. People tend to retreat into their Platonic caves.

 

[Caliban]

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.

More posts like this please.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think so. Unless I've misunderstood deism, the Deist God creates and then is no longer involved.

If we see this like a giant domino toppling set-up, the deistic God sits it up and hits the first domino and then goes away. In this scenario the dominos do what they were set up to do. Everything occurs just as the deistic God designed it, but they cannot get involved because to do so is to change everything about their creation.

On the other hand, the theistic God could still have the set-up and start but can have the creator also intervening to change the flow of the domino toppling at any point, causing the whole pattern to change. This theistic God is both transcending time and involved in it.

We will always find similarities between different ideas of Gods, but that doesn't mean that they are the same concept.

I am confused by your contrast of deistic and theistic god. Theos is the Hellenistic Greek word for God. A Diest is still a theist.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I am confused by your contrast of deistic and theistic god. Theos is the Hellenistic Greek word for God. A Diest is still a theist.

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

The two are mutually exclusive ideas about a deity. A deist is not a theist.

 

[Caliban]

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

The two are mutually exclusive ideas about a deity. A deist is not a theist.

Maybe we just are not in agreement about the semantic use of god and supreme being. I consider the synonymous. When I say god, I am not necessarily thinking of a specific one or a personal one. Any belief in a super human being or spirt is a god makes a person a theist.

According to thesaurus.com the words god and deity are synonymous.

Deity is the latin word for god
Theo is the Greek word for god.
Both of these roots mean god.

If theism is the belief in a god or gods, why would a person believing in a deistic god not be a theist?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

The two are mutually exclusive ideas about a deity. A deist is not a theist.

I'd probably throw this at him, brother Wayne:

Criticism of Deism by Blaise Pascal (1623-62), prodigious French mathemetician, physicist, inventor of an early computer, Christian philosopher, and author of Pensees (Thoughts):​

"All who seek God apart from Jesus Christ, and who rest in nature, either find no light to satisfy them, or form for themselves a means of knowing God and serving him without a Mediator. Thus they fall into either atheism or into deism, two things which the Christian religion almost equally abhors. . . . The knowledge of God without that of our wretchedness creates pride. The knowledge of our wretchedness without that of God creates despair. The knowledge of Jesus Christ is the middle way, because in Him we find both God and our wretchedness."​

(cited from terms & themes)​

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Maybe we just are not in agreement about the semantic use of god and supreme being. I consider the synonymous. When I say god, I am not necessarily thinking of a specific one or a personal one. Any belief in a super human being or spirt is a god makes a person a theist.

According to thesaurus.com the words god and deity are synonymous.

Deity is the latin word for god
Theo is the Greek word for god.
Both of these roots mean god.

If theism is the belief in a god or gods, why would a person believing in a deistic god not be a theist?

Because Deism and Theism are two mutually exclusive ideas whose etymology is the same word in different languages.

The root has no difference, and we still use deity to refer to any kind of god (but not Theo). But the roots of both words tie them to ideas about God, but their usage in modern language and modern philosophy of religion is distinct and different.

You could of course abandon the words and simply refer to 'the belief that God created and is no longer involved' and the 'belief that God created and is still involved'. If you want to do that, by all means, just don't expect everyone else to follow your desire. Most of us would just prefer to to type deism and theism to refer to the same things. It takes a lot less typing and anyone involved in the philosophy of religions would understand that.

Addendum. I think people generally will use theism, theistic and theist of people who believe in a god so to a certain extent you are right, but this thread is specifically about the differences between deism and theism and so it is necessary to bring out the distinction. I might use the term theist elsewhere in a more encapsulating way, but should it be necessary point out the different terms and how they are more often used.

 

[Caliban]

Because Deism and Theism are two mutually exclusive ideas whose etymology is the same word in different languages.

The root has no difference, and we still use deity to refer to any kind of god (but not Theo). But the roots of both words tie them to ideas about God, but their usage in modern language and modern philosophy of religion is distinct and different.

You could of course abandon the words and simply refer to 'the belief that God created and is no longer involved' and the 'belief that God created and is still involved'. If you want to do that, by all means, just don't expect everyone else to follow your desire. Most of us would just prefer to to type deism and theism to refer to the same things. It takes a lot less typing and anyone involved in the philosophy of religions would understand that.

Thats fine, but in philosophy your use of theism would be non-standard. In a theological context it may work. I am simply familiar with the philosophical use of the term theism as a belief system that claims a god exists (any god). It is semantic anyway.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Thats fine, but in philosophy your use of theism would be non-standard. In a theological context it may work. I am simply familiar with the philosophical use of the term theism as a belief system that claims a god exists (any god). It is semantic anyway.

No I was referring to philosophy of religions which would understand the terms as meaning different things. I'm not particularly au fait with general philosophy, but I guess like a lot of things when you deal with more detail you need more detailed terms that aren't used elsewhere.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because Deism and Theism are two mutually exclusive ideas whose etymology is the same word in different languages.

Mutually exclusive? So deists are atheists? I don't think that can be right.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Mutually exclusive? So deists are atheists? I don't think that can be right.

I don't think that can be right either. Not sure where you got that from.

 

[ChetSinger]

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!

Good question imo. I think Paul says that the creation itself is enough to lead someone to deism. He goes so far as to say that people who aren't at least deists have no excuse:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Paul, in Romans 1

But Christ is another matter. We cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws us to him:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. - Jesus, in John 6

So as I understand the New Testament, deism should come naturally to everyone. And indeed almost every culture has had some sort of supernatural belief system. But knowledge of Christ does not come naturally; it must be revealed by the Father.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't think that can be right either. Not sure where you got that from.

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

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

 

[Ed1wolf]

Deism is problematic because it posits a personal being as the first cause, when I don't see any good reason to assume that a first cause must necessarily be personal. Especially if you reject a concept such as divine revelation.

Actually the deist god is not personal. Theism is belief in a personal god.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually the deist god is not personal. Theism is belief in a personal god.

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