Introduction to deism [Archive] - Understanding Islam Community

View Full Version : Introduction to deism

Yahya Sulaiman

7th October 2003, 15:30

My beliefs have been sort of floating in no man's land lately, but as it stands I am a deist. A lot of people in America, and probably elsewhere, don't know about deism, so let me tell you here.

Deism is a system of philosophy that rejects organized religion while maintaining that God exists. That's deism in a nutshell. Generally speaking, deists will also consider reason to be the purest and best method for determining truth, and historically the teleological arguments for God's existence have always been a staple of ours.

Most of the founding fathers of America were deists, as was Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan (who, to be fair, frequently seemed to waver uneasily between deism, agnosticism and atheism).

If you have any questions about deism, I'll be glad to answer them.

Darkyl

7th October 2003, 20:08

Peace American Deist,

From what you said, I assume you don't have any specific religious book or tradition as reference.
But you believe in the existance of a God (or multiple Gods?).

What are you basing your faith upon?
Do you believe in God because you think there are enough proof in the observable world or because you "feel" it?

I'd like to know more about it.
Thanks.

Peace

Darkyl

7th October 2003, 20:08

Yahya Sulaiman

8th October 2003, 01:09

As I said, reasoning is considered by deists to be the way to go about determining things, although nowhere is it etched in stone that we are not permitted to have mystical experiences. It's just that reasoning takes precedence wherever possible. I've heard of a trend called "emotional deism" that you might want to research--it has to do with emotional faith and all that.

I myself have carefully studied the debates about God's existence and concluded that God (likely) exists. Now the attributes of God are a little hazy to me, but I can tell from personal experience that God is at least somewhat benevolent to me.

Yahya Sulaiman

8th October 2003, 01:09

Darkyl

8th October 2003, 02:15

Peace American Deist,

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

I myself have carefully studied the debates about God's existence and concluded that God (likely) exists.</BLOCKQUOTE>

I'de be happy to know how you came to that conclusion. If you want to share it, of course.

Peace

Darkyl

8th October 2003, 02:15

Yahya Sulaiman

8th October 2003, 03:40

That would take a lot of explaining, and I'm too lazy to type so much. If I can figure out how to summarize it, I'll do so.

Yahya Sulaiman

8th October 2003, 03:40

That would take a lot of explaining, and I'm too lazy to type so much. If I can figure out how to summarize it, I'll do so.

Darkyl

8th October 2003, 08:09

I'm checking the site www.deism.com... I don't know if the opinions expressed on that site match with yours.

I must say that the solutions supporting Deism, as described on that site, violate the very first thing Deism itself exalt: reason.

Darkyl

8th October 2003, 08:09

Yahya Sulaiman

8th October 2003, 08:18

I just looked at that website, and it's a pretty poor one, not a good representation of deism. I'll see if I can find a better one for you in the next few days, n'est-ce pas?

Yahya Sulaiman

8th October 2003, 08:18

I just looked at that website, and it's a pretty poor one, not a good representation of deism. I'll see if I can find a better one for you in the next few days, n'est-ce pas?

Yahya Sulaiman

11th October 2003, 12:59

I haven't forgotten about this topic simply because I'm re-reverting (or however you'd say it). I'll still try to find you some good links in the next day or two.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Yahya Sulaiman

13th October 2003, 06:36

Here's a better site for you, Darkyl:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Darkyl

13th October 2003, 06:54

Peace,

thanks a lot Surah.
There are things about Deism that I fail to understand, especially when Deists claim to privilege the use of logic and reason.

Most Deists believe that God created the universe, "wound it up" and then disassociated himself from his creation. Some refer to Deists as believing in a God who acts as an absentee landlord or a blind watchmaker. A few Deists believe that God still intervenes in human affairs from time to time.

Why do they believe that? What reasonings, observations or proofs can bring to those conclusions?

They believe that one cannot access God through any organized religion, set of belief, ritual, sacrament or other practice.

Why not? They should somehow know the very nature of God to believe that.

God has not selected a chosen people (e.g. Jews or Christians) to be the recipients of any special revelation or gifts.

Same as above.

Deists pray, but only to express their appreciation to God for his works. They generally do not ask for special privileges, or try to assess the will of God through prayer.

Again, why not?

Thanks

Yahya Sulaiman

13th October 2003, 07:53

Basically, deists use reason to find out everything, and that includes the attributes of God. They usually are people who study the debates over God's existence and conclude that God exists, and then work their way up from there through reason. I think it's an admirable way of looking at the world, and I'm not at all ashamed that I spent a year or so in a state of deism.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Darkyl

13th October 2003, 15:38

Peace Surah,

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

Basically, deists use reason to find out everything, and that includes the attributes of God. They usually are people who study the debates over God's existence and conclude that God exists, and then work their way up from there through reason.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I understood that. The reason I'm asking what reasoning and observation they have it's because they come to conclusions that seem pretty arbitrary.

They think God exist: why?
The revealed religions are wrong: why?
You can thank God but not make requests to him: why?
God didn't send any prophet: how do they know that?

If they used reason only, there must be a logical reasoning behind those conclusion and I would like to know what it is.

Peace and thanks.

Edited by - Darkyl on 10/13/2003 13:15:07

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 03:05

I'm sorry, Darkyl, but there are almost as many answers to your questions as there are deists. What works for one person may not work for another, and everyone gathers different conclusions.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Vajradhara

15th October 2003, 03:12

Namaste,

perhaps, surah, rather than answer for all deists, you could explain your own rationale in maintaining the beliefs you had whilst a deist?

that would tend to confine the discussion enough to be meaningful and allow you the opportunity to respond without being to overly vague.

~compassionately~

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 03:19

I was an atheist for a while, but I found, as I studied the debates and scholarly work of atheologists, that the trick to their ideas is that they appear rational at first sight, but the more you read them and learn about them, the more they look to you like a mix of inherently unanswerable questions pretending to be arguments (usually along the lines of "Why would God do that?"), mystery appeals, and way too strong a trust in Occam's Razor, amongst other things. Furthermore, many of the teleological arguments started to look more and more like they made sense, and I found that the atheologist's responses to them, and counterarguments to them, are deceptively dumb and even desperate.

So in a strongly irreligious frame of mind, and with a new take on the debates over God's existence that focused heavily on teleology, and with my lifelong trust in reasoning, it was only natural that I call myself a deist. In fact, I found that I pretty much had become one already.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Edited by - Surah on 10/14/2003 20:19:51

Vajradhara

15th October 2003, 03:35

Namaste surah,

i don't know if that addressed Darkyl's questions or not...

though i would tend to think that it didn't... as he was asking some specific questions.

what about Occams Razor do you not agree with, specifically, if you don't mind?

i'm unfamaliar with the term "atheologist" can you explain and define the term please?

one is left wondering what type of atheist you were proclaiming to be if you were reading works by "atheologists", would you have considered yourself to be a strong or weak atheist?

which argument, if there is one, did you find most spurious to the atheistic point of view?

using reason and logic, can you explain why you came to the conclusion that A) there is a creator deity? b) that you can somehow gain some knowledge of said creator deity? c) that the creator deity that you've chosen to follow is the correct one?

~compassionately~

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 03:51

If I've been deliberately vague, then it's because I've been asked a lot of questions for which it's hard to form a short answer, and it's always a big pain in the neck to type in a long answer.

So I'll go briefly over the questions asked by both posters here:

"They think God exist: why?"

Well, I already told you (briefly) why I thought so, and teleological arguments are, and always have been, the staple of deism, so I think that's a common enough reason, even though volumes could be written (and have been) on the subject as a whole.

"The revealed religions are wrong: why?"

I thought so at the time because I saw a uniformity to their doctrines and their influence on each other which made it look extremely unlikely to me that any of them were right when the others were wrong.

"You can thank God but not make requests to him: why?"

I don't think all deists agree with the website on that matter. Those who do will probably tell you that God knows His design better than we do, and so it's presumptuous and selfish of us to make special requests.

"God didn't send any prophet: how do they know that?"

To be honest, I don't think the issue crosses a deist's mind very often, but the answer will probably be the same as that to religion in general, that none of the alleged prophets look like a deist like they're anything special, and deists tend to hold a low view of dogmas in general, dogmas being what is usually taught by prophets.

"what about Occams Razor do you not agree with, specifically, if you don't mind?"

Occam's Razor is fine as a last resort when you're confused about something, but skeptical scholars tend to place such a ridiculously high emphasis on it, and trust in it so much, that I think it's kind of a defense mechanism with them. It's an inductive argument made for the sake of convenience, but a lot of them treat it as if it's foolproof, or even more reliable as a whole than I think it is.

"i'm unfamaliar with the term 'atheologist' can you explain and define the term please?"

An atheologist is simply an atheistic scholar, i.e. a scholar who writes about atheism in a positive way. He/she is to atheism what a theologian or apologist is to a religion.

"one is left wondering what type of atheist you were proclaiming to be if you were reading works by 'atheologists', would you have considered yourself to be a strong or weak atheist?"

I've forgotten what those terms mean.

"which argument, if there is one, did you find most spurious to the atheistic point of view?"

The Argument from Natural Law.

"using reason and logic, can you explain why you came to the conclusion that A) there is a creator deity? b) that you can somehow gain some knowledge of said creator deity? c) that the creator deity that you've chosen to follow is the correct one?"

I'm planning to write an article on my road to reversion for the website of the mosque I'm going to join soon. (Before I can go anywhere, I have to recover from the illness that's kept me in my house for the past couple of days.) When I've finished it I'll post it on this board, and it will go on at length about both the existence of God and my reasons for reverting.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Ronnie

15th October 2003, 04:14

You can post it in our reader's articles section on the main page :)

Regards

Ahmad24

15th October 2003, 05:56

Assalamu Alaikum,

***"They think God exist: why?"

Well, I already told you (briefly) why I thought so, and teleological arguments are, and always have been, the staple of deism, so I think that's a common enough reason, even though volumes could be written (and have been) on the subject as a whole.***

Many theists share the same reasons for the existance of God, Whether deists, Muslims, Christians,...etc That's why I do not understand why the need for question unless we assume that only deists try to have logical reasos and other take it in faith only.

***"You can thank God but not make requests to him: why?"

I don't think all deists agree with the website on that matter. Those who do will probably tell you that God knows His design better than we do, and so it's presumptuous and selfish of us to make special requests.***

I think this has to do with the Question "why are we here?". Do deists have an answer for this question?

***"God didn't send any prophet: how do they know that?"

To be honest, I don't think the issue crosses a deist's mind very often, but the answer will probably be the same as that to religion in general, that none of the alleged prophets look like a deist like they're anything special, and deists tend to hold a low view of dogmas in general, dogmas being what is usually taught by prophets.***

But this in itself sounds like faith without a reason ( i mean claiming that God sent no prophets without any evidence).

Salam

Ahmad

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 06:10

"Why are we here?" has always sounded pretty vague to me. I never quite understand what is meant by it, and it seems that people might even mean different things by it.

As for the rejection of prophets...a deist would tell you (and rightfully so) that the burden of proof is never on someone to show that a prophet was not genuinely of God...rather, it's up to the prophet and their supporters to show the opposite.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Ahmad24

15th October 2003, 07:32

Assalamu Alaikum,

***"Why are we here?" has always sounded pretty vague to me. I never quite understand what is meant by it, and it seems that people might even mean different things by it.***

Yes people may mean different think, A muslim would say God created us in order that we would submite to him willingly , A christian may say in order to have relation with God and know him. and in both cases the idea about "make requests to God" or "pray" will make sense with this presupposition in mind .

***As for the rejection of prophets...a deist would tell you (and rightfully so) that the burden of proof is never on someone to show that a prophet was not genuinely of God...rather, it's up to the prophet and their supporters to show the opposite.***

That's true but the statment i commented on was "God didn't send any prophet" which is another claim that demand justification , and absence of proofs does not justify such claim . No proof is not a proof.

Salam

Ahmad

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 07:44

The idea is that a lack of evidence in support of God sending prophets, while not being proof of the contrary, is indicative of the contrary. I don't think any deist will tell you that they have proven such a thing or that it needs proof.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Ahmad24

15th October 2003, 08:09

***The idea is that a lack of evidence in support of God sending prophets, while not being proof of the contrary, is indicative of the contrary. I don't think any deist will tell you that they have proven such a thing or that it needs proof.***

I do not think it should be even an indicatvie of the contrary. at sometime in history peeple had no proofs of things which we regard now as facts like, existence of planets, the movement of earth around sun...etc. I would prefer to say I need proof to believe in that, than to say since there is no proof then I "think" it means or "indicates" that this things doesn't exist.

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 08:35

A deist will often have the same general conceptions of burdens of proof on supernatural matters that an atheist will have--with the exception that I've never seen a deist shift around hypocritically between the burden of proof being on the person introducing the claim, the person introducing the positive claim, and the person introducing the extraordinary claim depending on whichever version is the one that happens to allow them to escape a shared burden of proof at this particular moment. Atheists are really bad about doing that.

Basically, a deist will usually say (I have noticed) that you should remain agnostic about something until evidence one way or another arises, but that until some criteria for disproving a prophet's claim are introduced, some kind of evidence in favor of the prophet's veracity will have to be presented.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Darkyl

15th October 2003, 16:14

Peace Surah,

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

I was an atheist for a while, but I found, as I studied the debates and scholarly work of atheologists, that the trick to their ideas is that they appear rational at first sight, but the more you read them and learn about them, the more they look to you like a mix of inherently unanswerable questions pretending to be arguments (usually along the lines of "Why would God do that?"), mystery appeals, and way too strong a trust in Occam's Razor, amongst other things. Furthermore, many of the teleological arguments started to look more and more like they made sense, and I found that the atheologist's responses to them, and counterarguments to them, are deceptively dumb and even desperate.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there's an explanation for the existance of God in this paragraph. You started believing in God because atheist weren't convincing? Is that a proof of God's existance?
As Vajradhara said, it seems a very vague reasoning.

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

Basically, a deist will usually say (I have noticed) that you should remain agnostic about something until evidence one way or another arises
</BLOCKQUOTE>

This means that you (in the past), and deists, found evidence of the existance of God. I'd like to know what it is.

Peace

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 16:25

Darkyl

15th October 2003, 16:46

It's not because atheists weren't convincing. It's because (a) they weren't convincing on teleological matters, and (b) their opponents in the debate seemed to be, and their arguments often seemed sound.

Yes I got that. So the atheist's opponents and their arguments often seemed sound...
As you said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

you should remain agnostic about something until evidence one way or another arises
</BLOCKQUOTE>

What evidence arised?

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 16:51

Oh yes, one more thing...

As I've said before, laying out the exact reasons for my conclusions cannot be done in a post but only in a lengthy essay. You seem to have trouble accepting this.

With that said, there are some nicely written articles on the main site that largely agree with me on the matter and discuss the controversy in a certain amount of detail:

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=16&sscatid=41
http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1366&sscatid=41
http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=429
http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1034&sscatid=41
http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=259&sscatid=41
http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=400&sscatid=41

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Darkyl

15th October 2003, 17:45

Peace Surah,
<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

As I've said before, laying out the exact reasons for my conclusions cannot be done in a post but only in a lengthy essay. You seem to have trouble accepting this.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's pretty obvious that I have trouble understanding a conclusion that is claimed to be backed up with evidence if the evidence is not provided.

Anyway I checked the links you offered, and basically the author's view can be resumed with the "anthropic principle" and "intelligent design" theories.

Not that I agree or find those theories plausible, but citing them would have been explicative of your view.

Peace

Edited by - Darkyl on 10/15/2003 10:48:14

Yahya Sulaiman

15th October 2003, 17:58

From what I've learned on intelligent design and the anthropic principle, nothing in those articles was about them--their methods of teleology are much more general in nature.

This thread was supposed to be an introduction to deism, and now it's turned into a series of posts in which people pester me to give answers on a very broad subject, even though I've told them repeatedly that I can't do this with anything approaching brevity, and I'm not about to write a long essay just to explain the exact reasons for my abandoment of atheism to you, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT WASN'T THE INTENT OF THIS THREAD. I am getting very tired of this thread--every post I make is just an excuse for one of you to accuse me of vagueness because I'm not typing the pages and pages that you apparently think that you're entitled to see just on general principles, for as I've said about a thousand times now, THERE ARE NO SHORT ANSWERS FOR THE QUESTIONS YOU'RE ASKING. And yet every attempt I make to do what I can to give you the jist of the subject just leaves me open to more accusations of vagueness, and the obvious implication that I'm evading something. This never fails to make me feel extremely insulted. I will go on at greater length on the topic when I finish my article on my road to reversion, as I've said before. Until then,

LEAVE
ME
ALONE!

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

ayesha

15th October 2003, 18:19

Sounds like Chill Pill time?? :)

It seems to me that all Darkyl wants to do is to educate himself/herself on the subject of Deism and the intent is not to accuse you.

By the way, your article is anxiously awaited :)

Regards,

Ayesha

Darkyl

15th October 2003, 19:14

Peace Surah,

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

From what I've learned on intelligent design and the anthropic principle, nothing in those articles was about them--their methods of teleology are much more general in nature.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the author himself explicitely cites "fine tuning" and other reasonings that are part of the anthropic principle, and explicitely talks about evidences of an "intelligent design" in the observable world.

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

This thread was supposed to be an introduction to deism, and now it's turned into a series of posts in which people pester me to give answers on a very broad subject, even though I've told them repeatedly that I can't do this with anything approaching brevity, and I'm not about to write a long essay just to explain the exact reasons for my abandoment of atheism to you, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT WASN'T THE INTENT OF THIS THREAD.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you started the topic to explain something about Deism. You say Deists back up their beliefs with reasoning.
I think it's obvious people will want to know what is the reasoning behind the belief in the existance of a God.

There's no other way people could understand Deism if even the very basic concepts are not explained.

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

I am getting very tired of this thread--every post I make is just an excuse for one of you to accuse me of vagueness because I'm not typing the pages and pages that you apparently think that you're entitled to see just on general principles, for as I've said about a thousand times now, THERE ARE NO SHORT ANSWERS FOR THE QUESTIONS YOU'RE ASKING. And yet every attempt I make to do what I can to give you the jist of the subject just leaves me open to more accusations of vagueness, and the obvious implication that I'm evading something. This never fails to make me feel extremely insulted.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry if you felt insulted, it really wasn't my intention.
Anyway I think that it's clear that in any kind of discussion/debate, unexplained statements will seem arbitrary and vague.

I made researches on my own about Deism, on several sites and pages, and I had the same feeling, some conclusions seems arbitrary and vague.

<BLOCKQUOTE>QUOTE:

I will go on at greater length on the topic when I finish my article on my road to reversion, as I've said before. Until then,

LEAVE
ME
ALONE!

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It's your choice not to answer, but you can't expect people to seriously consider something when that something is not explained at all.

Peace.

Vajradhara

15th October 2003, 21:19

Namaste all,

Surah, our questions should not be viewed as a personal attack in any sense of the word.

it's true, we are asking definite questions that have definite answers... however, you've already done the work so it should be of little burden to provide us with the reasoning that you've used to decide what you decided.

The Occams Razor description you've provided seems an odd one to me. from what i recall, Occams Razor is the technique of reducing very complex answers to simple answers, with the thinking that the more simple answer is more likely to be correct. it is a technique that has proven remarkably useful throughout it's existence in the scientific community.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, by the by, and he generally considered himself to be a Christian... so i think that a deist could have more propensity for one of the monotheistic faiths or the other.

actually.. if you'll carefully review the posts... this thread is generally asking you why you went from being a Deist to a Muslim.. and, moreover, what your reasoning was to be a Deist in the first place.

that seemed to be pretty much on target for an introduction to deism thread....

~compassionately~

Yahya Sulaiman

16th October 2003, 08:22

All of this will be included in my article, so just wait for that.

"Intelligent design" and "anthropic principles" are probably rather broad labels in and of themselves, but you never hear the phrases when they aren't being associated with these complicated, mathematical arguments used by Christian creationists.

I am the poster formerly known as American Deist. No, I don't have a little Venus sign to show you. ;-)

Vajradhara

16th October 2003, 20:46

Namaste,

anthropic principle is predicated on the No Boundary Proposal and vice versa...

personally, i've never heard a Christian put forth the Anthropic Principle nor the No Boundary Proposal... those concepts are pretty contrary to normative Christian Theology.

~compassionately~

Yahya Sulaiman

30th October 2003, 09:48

You may be wondering where this article is. I assure you I haven't forgotten about it. Rather, it's very long and coming along gradually, and things have been slow lately, especially with Ramadan going on. But within a week or so, it should be completed.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

mpriest

1st November 2003, 14:05

Salaam

Well in fact no,I wasn't wondering since you have been
focusing on Islam. Maybe the others were.

matthew missionary priest

Yahya Sulaiman

3rd November 2003, 13:55

Bad news: I accidentally saved over the file. Now I'm going to have to start over again. But it's no big loss: just means it's going to take a few more days. I'll probably make it shorter this time too.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.