Introduction to deism

[Darkyl]

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]

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]

Peace Surah,

<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1">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></FONT>

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Regards

[Ahmad24]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

***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]

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. ;-)