If theism stands and falls with theists ...

[Yazata]

Not simply loneliness, but flat-out solipsism.

I don't understand how solipsism is relevant to this discussion.

As I understand it, solipsism is the belief that one's self is the only thing that exists. It typically arises as an unintended consequence of idealist ontologies and phenomenalist theories of perception.

An individual who isn't a member of an organized church or religious denomination is typically going to believe in the extra-subjective existence of physical objects and other people. If the person is a theist, then he or she is going to believe in a theistic God as well.

So being a theist almost guarantees that somebody isn't going to be a full-frontal solipsist, unless that person is identifying themselves with God. (Of course, since solipsistic implications are typically an unintended consequence of bad philosophy, many philosophers have believed themselves to be good Christians while unwittingly arguing for solipsistic conclusions.)

I think one practically runs into the problem of solipsism also when one tries to take on the discourse and practice of a community that one does not belong to.

"

I still don't understand. Who would be trying to do that, and why?

In the case of theism, someone who feels a need to believe in God or do something in their relation to God, but who doesn't belong to any theistic community.

It's not that uncommon to feel a "spiritual longing" yet not be a member of a religious community.

If somebody "feels a spiritual longing" (I fit that description, I think) he or she might arguably be experiencing some kind of religious intuition. Sometimes these kind of people are theists, sometimes they're not. (I don't believe in God, so I'm not.)

If somebody "feels a need to believe in God or do something in their relation to God", then that person wold seem to already be a theist, simply by definition. Their "spiritual longing" has already been packaged in theistic form and is being imagined and expressed in terms of one's relationship to theism's 'God' entity.

I guess that I can imagine an intermediate problem case in which somebody has heard theism's accounts of its God-entity, really and truly wants to have a relationship with such a being, but unfortunately doesn't believe that such a being exists. I wouldn't call that person a theist. He or she would seemingly be an non-theist who would really like to become a theist, but needs some reason to beleive that's more convincing than his or her own desire.

It's not clear how one can believe in the existence of God without being a member of a theistic religious organization.

Millions of people do it all the time. Lots of people believe in God without formally being members of any church or religious denomination.

It's not clear how this is possible?
You will need to explain how there can be one without the other.

You believe in 'God' (however you interpret that word). You aren't formally a member of any particular church group such as Roman or Greek Catholic, Lutheran, or whatever. It doesn't seem all that problematic to me.

The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey classified 14.2% of the American adult population (32,441,000 people) as what ARIS called 'Christian generic', meaning people who identify themselves as 'Christians' but aren't formal church members.

I'm sure many people seem to fit that description. But if you look at what they actually believe and practice, how consistent are they, how philosophical refined are their beliefs about God? They seem to have a very general belief in God and also a very general practice.

Of course. They are going to be all over the map. That's probably true of church members as well. Roman Catholics display a great deal of internal diversity, ranging from Jesuit theology professors to Angolan villagers who who practice some Catholic/African-traditional syncretism.

 

[wynn]

As I understand it, solipsism is the belief that one's self is the only thing that exists. It typically arises as an unintended consequence of idealist ontologies and phenomenalist theories of perception.

Yes.

And I believe this is what happens when one tries to unilaterally, on one's own accord to become a theist, as one sees oneself as the instance who has to unilaterally decide whether there is a being greater than oneself.

This doesn't mean that one will become a full-blown, consequent solipsist; but the idea that belief in God is solely one's own doing is forcing one into solipsism.

So being a theist almost guarantees that somebody isn't going to be a full-frontal solipsist,

Sure. But trying to become a theist on one's own does force one into solipsism.

Deciding about things one believes are lesser than oneself is within our scope.
But trying to decide about things that are bigger than oneself - this is not within our scope.

Interestingly, all the theistic preaching I have heard so far indeed places the whole burden of belief and other epistemic burdens on the individual - thus effectively enforcing solipsism.

"You need to decide whether God exists or not" - that is solipsistic idiocity, unless we consider God to be a being lesser than we or at least a being that is at best our vending machine (in which case, why bother with belief in God at all?).

If somebody "feels a need to believe in God or do something in their relation to God", then that person wold seem to already be a theist, simply by definition. Their "spiritual longing" has already been packaged in theistic form and is being imagined and expressed in terms of one's relationship to theism's 'God' entity.

I guess that I can imagine an intermediate problem case in which somebody has heard theism's accounts of its God-entity, really and truly wants to have a relationship with such a being, but unfortunately doesn't believe that such a being exists. I wouldn't call that person a theist. He or she would seemingly be an non-theist who would really like to become a theist, but needs some reason to beleive that's more convincing than his or her own desire.

Yes. And such a person also intensely experiences the solipsistic threat implicit in going merely by their own desires and their own thoughts.

Millions of people do it all the time. Lots of people believe in God without formally being members of any church or religious denomination.

You believe in 'God' (however you interpret that word). You aren't formally a member of any particular church group such as Roman or Greek Catholic, Lutheran, or whatever. It doesn't seem all that problematic to me.

But I wonder how these people came to believe in God.

 

[river]

look people , get to know OUR Ancient History

it will give us a much , much , much , better understanding of god and us Humans and our relations with god

and I'm an atheist

 

[Rav]

Or would you like to argue that belief and behavior have nothing to do with eachother? And that a person can believe P, and yet act as if not-P, and still be considered consistent?

In the case of deism, P is the belief in a god, but one that does not intervene and has not provided any divine revelation, so when a deist acts as if there is a god, but one that does not intervene and has not provided any divine revelation, then their behaviour is indeed consistent with their beliefs.

What you're essentially doing is insisting that P is necessarily what you think it must be, and that's why you're seeing inconsistency between belief and behaviour where there actually isn't any.

But aside from all that, the real point of contention here is about whether or not a deist can be legitimately placed in the atheist category, and the fact is that no-one is going to stand for such an absurd move.

 

[wynn]

In the case of deism, P is the belief in a god, but one that does not intervene and has not provided any divine revelation, so when a deist acts as if there is a god, but one that does not intervene and has not provided any divine revelation, then their behaviour is indeed consistent with their beliefs.

So what does that action look like?

What you're essentially doing is insisting that P is necessarily what you think it must be,

It's called "having a view."
:bugeye:

and that's why you're seeing inconsistency between belief and behaviour where there actually isn't any.

But aside from all that, the real point of contention here is about whether or not a deist can be legitimately placed in the atheist category, and the fact is that no-one is going to stand for such an absurd move.

Still arguing for the supremacy of atheism ...

 

[Rav]

So what does that action look like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_today
http://www.moderndeism.com/
http://www.deism.com/index.html

It's called "having a view."
:bugeye:

No wynn, in this case it's called supplanting your view of god and it's relationship with creation into the deist world view and then accusing them of acting in an inconsistent manner with respect to that world view. It's a trumped up charge, to say the least.

Still arguing for the supremacy of atheism ...

No, I'm still arguing for the supremacy of not bastardizing established terminology. Your argument isn't just with me, it's with the entirety of the philosophical and theological community. As such, it has nothing to do with atheism in particular.

 

[wynn]

No, I'm still arguing for the supremacy of not bastardizing established terminology.

That "established terminology" is sometimes atheistic.

Your argument isn't just with me, it's with the entirety of the philosophical and theological community.

Hiding behind some big "we"?
Do you see "the entirety of the philosophical and theological community" all here?

 

[wynn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_today
http://www.moderndeism.com/
http://www.deism.com/index.html

In that case, the activities of deism seem to be primarily about deists promulgating and advertising their own ideas about God. And those ideas are such in which God doesn't really matter, or is at most considered essentially like a vending-machine ...

 

[Jan Ardena]

In that case, the activities of deism seem to be primarily about deists promulgating and advertising their own ideas about God. And those ideas are such in which God doesn't really matter, or is at most considered essentially like a vending-machine ...

Reading the wiki link, I would agree that a ''deist'', is a theist.
They believe in God, but do not accept the Christiain notion of God.
At it's most potent, I think this is a form of jnana-yoga.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

In that case, the activities of deism seem to be primarily about deists promulgating and advertising their own ideas about God. And those ideas are such in which God doesn't really matter, or is at most considered essentially like a vending-machine ...

Deists view a god as the creator of the universe and everything in it, so to say that they act as if "God doesn't matter" is factually incorrect. And at any rate, no matter how they view their creator, the fact that they believe one is there means they are not atheists, as you so wrongly asserted before.

Is it so hard to admit you got this one wrong?

 

[wynn]

Reading the wiki link, I would agree that a ''deist'', is a theist.
They believe in God, but do not accept the Christiain notion of God.
At it's most potent, I think this is a form of jnana-yoga.

Deists view a god as the creator of the universe and everything in it, so to say that they act as if "God doesn't matter" is factually incorrect. And at any rate, no matter how they view their creator, the fact that they believe one is there means they are not atheists, as you so wrongly asserted before.

Is it so hard to admit you got this one wrong?

Seeing God is if He would be a thing, less than a human, even if very powerful - that is implicit atheism.

It's like Harold Kushner with his idea that God is good but powerless. He could be considered a dictionary theist, sure, but his idea of God is in effect atheistic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seeing God is if He would be a thing, less than a human, even if very powerful - that is implicit atheism.

It's like Harold Kushner with his idea that God is good but powerless. He could be considered a dictionary theist, sure, but his idea of God is in effect atheistic.

It may be atheistic, because he is atheistic, but he believes in God, just not the aspect of God that Christians believe in. And that is theism.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Seeing God is if He would be a thing, less than a human, even if very powerful - that is implicit atheism.

It's like Harold Kushner with his idea that God is good but powerless. He could be considered a dictionary theist, sure, but his idea of God is in effect atheistic.

Wrong again. A deist's idea of god is certainly different than, say, a Christian's, but so long as a deist believes in a god, then it is not atheism, either in definition or "in effect."

You seem to be hung up on this notion that "living as if god exists" can only mean one very specific thing, which appears to be to live as if someone is watching. In other words, your conception of god appears to be that of a present, interested deity, who sees what you do and judges you on those acts. And, by this logic, if someone else's god does not fit this mold, then it's really atheism. But I assure you this is wrong.

 

[wynn]

It may be atheistic, because he is atheistic, but he believes in God, just not the aspect of God that Christians believe in. And that is theism.

Wrong again. A deist's idea of god is certainly different than, say, a Christian's, but so long as a deist believes in a god, then it is not atheism, either in definition or "in effect."

You seem to be hung up on this notion that "living as if god exists" can only mean one very specific thing, which appears to be to live as if someone is watching. In other words, your conception of god appears to be that of a present, interested deity, who sees what you do and judges you on those acts. And, by this logic, if someone else's god does not fit this mold, then it's really atheism. But I assure you this is wrong.

By that logic, believing in a film star or rock star is theism, too.

 

[Rav]

In that case, the activities of deism seem to be primarily about deists promulgating and advertising their own ideas about God. And those ideas are such in which God doesn't really matter, or is at most considered essentially like a vending-machine ...

As I pointed out earlier, some deists are very spiritual people. From Wikipedia:

Spiritual deism is the religious and philosophical belief in one indefinable, omnipresent god who is the cause or the substance (or both) of the universe. Spiritual Deists reject all divine revelation, religious dogma, and supernatural events and favor an ongoing personalized connection with the divine presence through intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation. Generally, Spiritual Deists reject the notion that God consciously intervenes in human affairs.

That is not an example of people behaving as if God doesn't matter.

You can find further discussion on the topic of deist spirituality on the websites I have linked to, and many others.

 

[wynn]

Spiritual deism is the religious and philosophical belief in one indefinable, omnipresent god who is the cause or the substance (or both) of the universe. Spiritual Deists reject all divine revelation, religious dogma, and supernatural events and favor an ongoing personalized connection with the divine presence through intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation. Generally, Spiritual Deists reject the notion that God consciously intervenes in human affairs.

So if they hold

Spiritual Deists reject all divine revelation, religious dogma, and supernatural events and favor an ongoing personalized connection with the divine presence through intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation.

how can they also hold

Generally, Spiritual Deists reject the notion that God consciously intervenes in human affairs.

?


Going by this, to me, deism looks more like adoration of a fictional character - of course one has a vested interest that the fictional character wouldn't actually respond ...

 

[Rav]

So if they hold

Spiritual Deists reject all divine revelation, religious dogma, and supernatural events and favor an ongoing personalized connection with the divine presence through intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation.

how can they also hold

Generally, Spiritual Deists reject the notion that God consciously intervenes in human affairs.

I don't see the incompatibility. From the deist perspective there's nothing about the absence of intervention that precludes an indirect connection to God through what he has created, us being a part of that. In other words, human intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation are all methods by which one can come as close to God as mere humans are able to. Further, the fact that God created a universe in which intelligent life can exist clearly implies that intelligent life was an intended consequence of creation, which further implies that the human capacity for recognizing such things is also not an accident. In the end many deists come to believe that God does indeed have a plan for us, that part of that plan necessarily involves not interfering with our development, and that embracing our God given inclination to connect with creation (and as much of the nature of that which transcends it as we are able to divine) is probably important since such inclinations are no accident.

Going by this, to me, deism looks more like adoration of a fictional character - of course one has a vested interest that the fictional character wouldn't actually respond ...

And the deists would no doubt tell you that the failure of religion to be collectively consistent is much stronger evidence of fiction than is simply embracing the reality of a transcendent mystery.

 

[Jan Ardena]

By that logic, believing in a film star or rock star is theism, too.

But it is not theism, regardless of what they think.

jan.

 

[James R]

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve, wynn, by trying to redefine the term "deist" to suit yourself. Maybe you should write your own personal dictionary or something.

Deists believe in God. Get over it.

 

[wynn]

But it is not theism, regardless of what they think.

Riiight. Read again what you've just said.

See, that's the problem with the anything-goes kind of theism - it gets absurd.

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve, wynn, by trying to redefine the term "deist" to suit yourself. Maybe you should write your own personal dictionary or something.

I'm not redefining the term, I am discussing it and the implications of its usual dictionary definitions.

Deists believe in God. Get over it.

And Jimi Hendrix is God. So is Edward Cullen.