If theism stands and falls with theists ...

[wynn]

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.

How can one claim both to have an "ongoing personalized connection with the divine" and yet also hold that "God does not consciously intervene in human affairs"?

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.

But the deists are not actually "embracing the reality of a transcendent mystery" - given that they actively and apriori exclude the possibility of God actually communicating with people. The deists allow for many things - except for the possibility of God being personally involved in people's lives. That doesn't seem like an open-minded stance to me.

Why don't they consider the possibility that God does get personally involved in people's lives, and also communicates with them?

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Riiight. Read again what you've just said.

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

The only problem here is you.

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

The dictionary definition states that deism as belief in God.
So what's your problem?

And Jimi Hendrix is God. So is Edward Cullen.

Hendrix is respected as a guitar god.
Nothing to do with theism.

But if you looking for something else to get into knock yourself out.

jan.

 

[wynn]

The only problem here is you.

Really? A person can be a problem? And you intend to do away with me - because no man, no problem?

The dictionary definition states that deism as belief in God.
So what's your problem?

That it is a too broad definition.

Hendrix is respected as a guitar god.
Nothing to do with theism.

Theism is defined as "belief in a god/God or gods."

If Hendrix is god, then belief in Hendrix is theism.

 

[Rav]

How can one claim both to have an "ongoing personalized connection with the divine" and yet also hold that "God does not consciously intervene in human affairs"?

I already explained it. But my comments below will add some additional perspective.

But the deists are not actually "embracing the reality of a transcendent mystery" - given that they actively and apriori exclude the possibility of God actually communicating with people.

Incorrect. Many deists believe that God is and always has been communicating with all of us. But such communication does not equal intervention. Rather, the message is simply an inherent part of nature itself. It tells us that there is a grand design, and that our ability to recognize it as such is part of that design. It tells us that God is real, and that creation is an expression of transcendence, that we are an expression of transcendence, that everything is connected somehow.

The deists allow for many things - except for the possibility of God being personally involved in people's lives.

Well, again, spiritual deists believe that there is a deeper ever present message that we can come to understand more fully through intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation. So as much as God could be said to be a personal entity, and as much as God allows such qualities to manifest in nature, there is indeed a personal involvement.

I know that doesn't satisfy you of course. You seem to desire a father figure who micromanages your life, instead of a God who sets up an arena within which it is up to you to decide your own spiritual destiny. But in the prevailing view of modern deism, God hasn't abandoned creation. God has left clues, absolutely everywhere, and has endowed us with the ability discover them. But the journey is open ended, the destination unknown, however there are most definitely profound God inspired spiritual experiences to be had along the way, if one so desires, as many of the more spiritual deists do.

Finally, a quote from Thomas Paine, a well known deist:


"It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal 'original copy' that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God."

That doesn't seem like an open-minded stance to me.

No-one is totally open-minded about all things. No-one. The best a person can do is have good reasons for believing what they believe over something else. But the reality of being human is such that people can often have equally good reasons for believing in mutually exclusive propositions, at least from their own perspectives anyway. As such I think the only practical and meaningful use for the term "closed-minded" would be in describing someone who is horribly locked into some sort of fanatical dogmatism. You know, those who aren't capable of or willing to even explore different perspectives, regardless of whether or not they are likely to be significantly influenced by such.

 

[wynn]

Incorrect. Many deists believe that God is and always has been communicating with all of us. But such communication does not equal intervention. Rather, the message is simply an inherent part of nature itself. It tells us that there is a grand design, and that our ability to recognize it as such is part of that design. It tells us that God is real, and that creation is an expression of transcendence, that we are an expression of transcendence, that everything is connected somehow.Well, again, spiritual deists believe that there is a deeper ever present message that we can come to understand more fully through intuition, communion with nature, meditation and contemplation.

So as much as God could be said to be a personal entity, and as much as God allows such qualities to manifest in nature, there is indeed a personal involvement.

In other words, deism seems to be a kind of anything-goes theism, a theism without any real duties or consequences.

I know that doesn't satisfy you of course. You seem to desire a father figure who micromanages your life, instead of a God who sets up an arena within which it is up to you to decide your own spiritual destiny.

No.
One requirement I do have is that God be viewed as at least as much of a person as I am a person.
As opposed to seeing God as some kind of "force" or "Dickensian hidden/distant benefactor."

But in the prevailing view of modern deism, God hasn't abandoned creation. God has left clues, absolutely everywhere, and has endowed us with the ability discover them.

Except that such freestyle theism over time develops a stronger and stronger shade of solipsism.

This is also my main objection to the kind of deism you are presenting here:
If it is up to the individual to decide what clue means what (in the name of God), then how is that any different from believing that one's own assessment of things is all that matters?
In that sense, the deists introducing God into the picture seems simply like a rhetorical maneouver to avoid the pits of solipsism.

As the Wiki link you posted earlier says:

Charles Taylor, in his 2007 book on Secular Age showed the historical role of deism, leading to what he calls an exclusive humanism. This humanism invokes a moral order, whose ontic commitment, is wholly intra-human; not carrying reference to transcendence.[71] One of the special achievements of such deism-based humanism is that it discloses new, anthropocentric moral sources by which human beings are motivated and empowered to accomplish mutual benefit.[72] This is the province of a buffered self, disengaged, who is the locus of dignity, freedom, discipline, and carrying a sense of human capability.[73] According to Taylor, by the early 19th century this deism-mediated exclusive humanism developed as an alternative to Christian faith in a personal God and an order of miracles and mystery.

But the journey is open ended, the destination unknown, however there are most definitely profound God inspired spiritual experiences to be had along the way, if one so desires, as many of the more spiritual deists do.

That's a rather titillating approach to spirituality then.

Finally, a quote from Thomas Paine, a well known deist:


"It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal 'original copy' that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God."

And how did Mr. Paine come to know all this?
Or did he just assert it?

You know, Thomas Paine is known for another quote - Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

So much for "describing someone who is horribly locked into some sort of fanatical dogmatism."

As such I think the only practical and meaningful use for the term "closed-minded" would be in describing someone who is horribly locked into some sort of fanatical dogmatism. You know, those who aren't capable of or willing to even explore different perspectives, regardless of whether or not they are likely to be significantly influenced by such.

Oh, I do know you are aiming this at me.

 

[Balerion]

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

If they believe that this rock star created the universe and intervenes in their daily lives, then yes, that would be theism. If they believed that the rock star merely set events in motion, however, that would be deism.

But by all means, don't let reality prevent you from rolling your eyes.

 

[Balerion]

That it is a too broad definition.

Yes, it is. The actual definition is as follows:

"1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.​

Theism is defined as "belief in a god/God or gods."

Again, not entirely. You left out this:

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).​

If Hendrix is god, then belief in Hendrix is theism.

If one believes that Hendrix is the creator and ruler of the universe, then yes, belief in Hendrix's divinity is theism.

 

[Rav]

One requirement I do have is that God be viewed as at least as much of a person as I am a person.
As opposed to seeing God as some kind of "force" or "Dickensian hidden/distant benefactor."

In other words, if God has chosen not to micromanage your life, but instead wants you to carve out an existence and a philosophy that makes sense to you, then the whole concept of God falls flat on it's face.

That is, quite simply, a completely impotent argument. If God exists, then God is what God is, and God does what God does, and God doesn't do what God doesn't do, and God's reasons are God's reasons. God simply is, and immutably so. To think that your own requirements have any bearing on the nature of such an ultimate reality is much, much closer to solipsism than anything you are accusing the deists of.

And how did Mr. Paine come to know all this?
Or did he just assert it?

As a deist, he would argue that it's obvious. But I'm not his advocate. I'm not going to argue that he's correct. But it is a deist perspective, and you've done nothing to demonstrate that it's false.

You know, Thomas Paine is known for another quote - Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

So much for "describing someone who is horribly locked into some sort of fanatical dogmatism."

What do you mean so much for? Even if that could be said to be an example of fanatical dogmatism, it does nothing to invalidate any of my comments.

Oh, I do know you are aiming this at me.

You are indeed, quite clearly, someone who seems completely unwilling to explore perspectives that aren't already you own. You'll probably try to accuse me of the same thing, but the fact that I'm here, putting myself in deists shoes, trying to look out through their eyes and see the world the way they see it, demonstrates the difference between us. And I'm quite fond of doing that sort of thing, and I think it would really do you a world of good to try it. At the very least you'll be able to return to your own favoured world view understanding more about the world that your views relate to.

 

[Rav]

If one believes that Hendrix is the creator and ruler of the universe, then yes, belief in Hendrix's divinity is theism.

My own personal view is that it is the sweet licks that Hendrix teases out on his Strat that are the underlying basis for the modes of oscillation in string theory, which in turn give rise to all the emergent properties of creation.

Sometimes, after I've been meditating for a few hours, I swear I can feel All Along The Watchtower reverberating within the very fabric of existence itself. That's when I know He is real.

 

[Balerion]

My own personal view is that it is the sweet licks that Hendrix teases out on his Strat that are the underlying basis for the modes of oscillation in string theory, which in turn give rise to all the emergent properties of creation.

Sometimes, after I've been meditating for a few hours, I swear I can feel All Along The Watchtower reverberating within the very fabric of existence itself. That's when I know He is real.

I endorse this post.

 

[wynn]

In other words, if God has chosen not to micromanage your life, but instead wants you to carve out an existence and a philosophy that makes sense to you, then the whole concept of God falls flat on it's face.

That's a false dichotomy.
One's life micromanaged by God and being left to oneself are not the only two options.
There's also the option of creative cooperation, for example.

That is, quite simply, a completely impotent argument. If God exists, then God is what God is, and God does what God does, and God doesn't do what God doesn't do, and God's reasons are God's reasons. God simply is, and immutably so. To think that your own requirements have any bearing on the nature of such an ultimate reality is much, much closer to solipsism than anything you are accusing the deists of.

My requirements are about what kind of theism, or outlook in general I will find acceptable.
A kind of outlook in which I have to reduce my sense of personhood is not one I would look forward to.

As a deist, he would argue that it's obvious. But I'm not his advocate. I'm not going to argue that he's correct. But it is a deist perspective, and you've done nothing to demonstrate that it's false.

Ha!
I don't think it is actually objectively possible to demonstrate an outlook as false.
Mathematical proofs are in the realm of being demonstrated as true or false.
But most other things are not.

And it wasn't my intention to demonstrate that deism was false (that is your projection); I am just exploring what I see are its weak points.

What do you mean so much for? Even if that could be said to be an example of fanatical dogmatism, it does nothing to invalidate any of my comments.

I would call this -

"It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal 'original copy' that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God."

fanatical dogmatism.

You are indeed, quite clearly, someone who seems completely unwilling to explore perspectives that aren't already you own. You'll probably try to accuse me of the same thing, but the fact that I'm here, putting myself in deists shoes, trying to look out through their eyes and see the world the way they see it, demonstrates the difference between us. And I'm quite fond of doing that sort of thing, and I think it would really do you a world of good to try it. At the very least you'll be able to return to your own favoured world view understanding more about the world that your views relate to.

Thank you, Florence!

As usual, you hold a weak supposal of my worth.

 

[wynn]

Theism is defined as "belief in a god/God or gods."

Again, not entirely. You left out this:

I didn't leave out anything.

Shall we wade through your, JamesR's, and so many other posters' posts and dictionary definitions and see that they define theism as "belief in a god/God or gods"?

If one believes that Hendrix is the creator and ruler of the universe, then yes, belief in Hendrix's divinity is theism.

Which is my point: there is a lot more to theism than just "belief in a god/God or gods." And people implicitly, intuitively know this. So holding on to the whole "theism is belief in a god/God or gods" is a sham.

If merely "belief in a god/God or gods" would pass for theism, then all those who worship Jimi Hendrix as God would be theists. But clearly, even his devoted fans do not see themselves that way.

The famous Rabbi Kushner defines God as "good, but powerless."
But if we hold the definition that "God is the creator and ruler of the universe," then Kushner is not a theist and doesn't believe in God, since Kushner's definition of God considers God unable to rule the Universe.

Along with Kushner, the deists are in murky waters too. If God is to be defined as "the creator and ruler of the Universe," then that puts the deists out of the business of unilaterally having the say on what is what in the Universe.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Really? A person can be a problem? And you intend to do away with me - because no man, no problem?

I meant that if there is a problem (as you mentioned), then the problem is with you.

That it is a too broad definition.

So you're not ''...discussing it and the implications of its usual dictionary definitions.''?

Theism is defined as "belief in a god/God or gods."

Okay, that's the secular/atheist view of theism, which would include ghosts, faeries, goblins, rabbits foot, not walking beneath ladders, and so on.

The reality is a theist is a person who believes in God, period.

If Hendrix is god, then belief in Hendrix is theism.

In your world, most likely.

jan.

 

[wynn]

In your world, most likely.

For all the appreciation you profess to have for my intelligence, you don't actually appreciate it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

For all the appreciation you profess to have for my intelligence, you don't actually appreciate it.

I don't believe you are using good intelligence in this instant.

Every so often you seem to have these moments.
I like you being here, but these moments get on my nerves because there is no reasoning with you.


jan.

 

[Balerion]

Which is my point: there is a lot more to theism than just "belief in a god/God or gods." And people implicitly, intuitively know this. So holding on to the whole "theism is belief in a god/God or gods" is a sham.

It's not a sham simply because you refuse to accept it. Theism is simply the belief in a god or gods as creator and ruler of the universe. If you want to get more specific than that, you're talking about religion.

It's like the difference between atheism and anti-theism. Yes, and atheist may believe that a particular faith is poisonous and that we would be better off without it, but that is not atheism itself. That's anti-theism.

If merely "belief in a god/God or gods" would pass for theism, then all those who worship Jimi Hendrix as God would be theists. But clearly, even his devoted fans do not see themselves that way.

Clearly, devoted fans don't actually view Jimi Hendix as a God. It's a figure of speech. It's no different than saying someone is an animal. Clearly no one is implying that someone is actually an animal.

However, if they were saying that Jimi Hendrix literally was the source of creation, then it wouldn't matter at all how they view themselves. I don't know why you think how a person or group views themselves is relevant to what they actually are. I can view myself as a scholar, but that doesn't make me one.

The famous Rabbi Kushner defines God as "good, but powerless."
But if we hold the definition that "God is the creator and ruler of the universe," then Kushner is not a theist and doesn't believe in God, since Kushner's definition of God considers God unable to rule the Universe.

I'd have to know more of Kushner's opinion on God before I attempted to classify him. Does he think God created the universe? If he thinks that's the extent of God's contribution, then he would be something of a deist.

Along with Kushner, the deists are in murky waters too. If God is to be defined as "the creator and ruler of the Universe," then that puts the deists out of the business of unilaterally having the say on what is what in the Universe.

What do you mean by "saying what is what"?

 

[wynn]

I don't believe you are using good intelligence in this instant.

Every so often you seem to have these moments.
I like you being here, but these moments get on my nerves because there is no reasoning with you.

You need to tune in your radar for irony and sarcasm.

If you'd actually appreciate my intelligence, you'd know where the Jimi Hendrix example was headed. Namely, to point out the insufficience of the idea that "theism is belief in a god/God or gods."

 

[Rav]

That's a false dichotomy.
One's life micromanaged by God and being left to oneself are not the only two options.
There's also the option of creative cooperation, for example.

My requirements are about what kind of theism, or outlook in general I will find acceptable.
A kind of outlook in which I have to reduce my sense of personhood is not one I would look forward to.

You missed the point. By effectively rejecting particular conceptions of the nature of God simply because they are not consistent with what you want the nature of God to be, you are essentially seeking the truth in the same way that job seekers seek jobs, or the way that single people seek partners. But if God exists, such an approach is most likely going to lead you to embrace a conception of the nature of God that is merely one that suits you, instead of being one that is correct.

This is perfectly fine if God doesn't actually exist. It's also perfectly fine if that's all you're trying to do. But if you're trying to get at the actual truth, your approach is the wrong one. One who is trying to get at the actual truth must be prepared to embrace the possibility that it wont be what they think it is, or what they want it to be.

I would call this -

"It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal 'original copy' that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God."

fanatical dogmatism.

I don't think that's fanatical at all. But so what if it's dogmatic? I didn't make the claim that deists aren't dogmatic.

Thank you, Florence!

As usual, you hold a weak supposal of my worth.

I'm not saying anything about your worth as a person. I am simply criticizing you for being unwilling to explore perspectives that aren't already your own. There's a difference.

 

[wynn]

You missed the point. By effectively rejecting particular conceptions of the nature of God simply because they are not consistent with what you want the nature of God to be, you are essentially seeking the truth in the same way that job seekers seek jobs, or the way that single people seek partners. But if God exists, such an approach is most likely going to lead you to embrace a conception of the nature of God that is merely one that suits you, instead of being one that is correct.

This is perfectly fine if God doesn't actually exist. It's also perfectly fine if that's all you're trying to do. But if you're trying to get at the actual truth, your approach is the wrong one. One who is trying to get at the actual truth must be prepared to embrace the possibility that it wont be what they think it is, or what they want it to be.

In effect, all that openness to embrace "whatever might be" translates into abandoning all standards of right and wrong, true and false, good and bad.

And in practice, this translates into eternal agnosticism, eternal paralysis, eternal inaction.
Of course, if one manages to zone out, these can feel meaningful and non-threatening enough.

I'm not saying anything about your worth as a person.

Oh, but you do.

I am simply criticizing you for being unwilling to explore perspectives that aren't already your own. There's a difference.

In order to conduct any exploration, one has to have standards, criteria, values, goals, directions.
I readily acknowledge that.

You, on the other hand, insist in some neutrality-assuming, unbiased, "bare awareness" - as if such a thing actually existed.

We can cut this conflict really short and remind ourselves that there are basically two kinds of meditators:

One group are those who pursue "bare awareness;" who believe mindfulness means to pay attention to whatever happens to be there; "relaxed receptivity" and "non-judgmental awareness" being further terms they use.

The other group are those who believe that each act of perception is done for a purpose, and that one must be clear about what that purpose is, and what standards are best for it; they believe that mindfulness means 'keeping something (such a particular precept, standard or topic) in mind' and that there is no such thing as "bare awareness."

 

[Rav]

In effect, all that openness to embrace "whatever might be" translates into abandoning all standards of right and wrong, true and false, good and bad.

I don't see how this abstraction has anything to do with what we're talking about. It's pretty simple. If the deist conception of God is accurate, and you dismiss it simply because you don't like it, you've let your personal requirements lead you away from the truth of existence.

This is the sort of predicament you get yourself into when you believe that God exists, but that the nature of God has to be compatible with your own preexisting views. You are, in effect, claiming that your own conception of God supersedes the reality of God.

Oh, but you do.

You're confusing the critical examination one's arguments and philosophical positions with the critical examination of one's worth as a person. I can only assume that what it means to be you is greater in scope than the sum total of your interactions with others in these forums, so I don't see how I am even in a position to judge your worth as a person, nor do I have any good reasons for thinking that I am even qualified to make such a determination.

I do however make snap judgments quite often (as we all do), since I generally find it somewhat frustrating to communicate with you. But one thing you'll never hear me say is that you're worthless, or even that you're worth less than me. And it's not because I'm afraid to say it. It's not because I feel I need to be politically correct. It's because I don't believe that you are. I never have.

If you still don't want to take my word for it, there's nothing else I can do.

In order to conduct any exploration, one has to have standards, criteria, values, goals, directions.
I readily acknowledge that.

You, on the other hand, insist in some neutrality-assuming, unbiased, "bare awareness" - as if such a thing actually existed.

We can cut this conflict really short and remind ourselves that there are basically two kinds of meditators:

One group are those who pursue "bare awareness;" who believe mindfulness means to pay attention to whatever happens to be there; "relaxed receptivity" and "non-judgmental awareness" being further terms they use.

The other group are those who believe that each act of perception is done for a purpose, and that one must be clear about what that purpose is, and what standards are best for it; they believe that mindfulness means 'keeping something (such a particular precept, standard or topic) in mind' and that there is no such thing as "bare awareness."

It's a whole lot simpler than all that. I mean really, do you think I permanently abandoned my own world view to explore the deist one? Of course I didn't. I just put it aside for a little while.

If I can do it, you can do it. It just seems that you're simply not willing to even try.