Deism

i was reading something recently about a thing called deism which i am now finding very fascinated and interesting.Also from what i understand its more of a philosophy on god than a religion as this god while he created the universe at the beginning and after after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. As a result. there are a variety of common religious beliefs that deists do not accept. They are:
1. There is No Need for Worship.
Because the deist god is entirely removed from involvement, he has neither need nor want of worship. Indeed, deists commonly hold that God does not even care if humanity believes in him.2. Rejection of Prophets
Because God has no desire for worship or other specific behavior, there is no reason for him to speak through prophets nor send representatives of himself among humanity.3. Rejection of Supernatural Events
God, in his wisdom, created all of the desired motions of the universe during creation. There is therefore no need for him to make mid-course corrections through the granting of visions, miracles and so forth.4. Methods of Understanding God
Because God does not manifest himself directly, he can only be understood through the application of reason and through the study of the universe he created. Deists have a fairly positive view of human existence, stressing the greatness of creation and the faculties granted to humanity such as the ability to reason. As such, deists reject all forms of revealed religion. Any knowledge one has of God should come through their own understanding, experiences and reason, not the prophecies of others.5. Deist Views of Organized Religions:
Because deists accept that God in uninterested in praise and that he in unapproachable via prayer, there is little organized religion surrounding deist beliefs. Deists often feel that organized religion add layers of untruth to the reality of God. Some deists, particularly historical ones, however, saw a value in organized religion for the common folk, because religion could instill positive concepts of morality and sense of community.So my 2 questions for all you people is this . Could Deism be the the almost near perfect compromise science and and god. Also what is your your thoughts on Deism besides that.

Thread copied here from the Deism thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well technically we dont need a god or deity to make the universe so occoms razor says no god. But given that we are talking about time 0 or 0 + 1/infinity im perfectly willing to give way and let you have that fraction of a time when magic can happen. Just dont get any ideas about asking for more LOLActually i think this idea of deism is more akin to Atheism just lack understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory and the big bang theory.

Well the existence of God is not the sort of thing one can compromise about. It's meant to be a factual proposition, not a choice, so we can't get the theists and atheists to sit down round a table and agree that maybe there is a bit of a god, but not all that much of one. Both sides agree that either there is or there isn't.

I don't think he's thinking of the question of God existing. Rather, I believe that he's thinking of the question of "The Long War of Science Against Christianity", to paraphrase the 19th Century book's title, which war creationists have picked up against science.The question is apparently how we are to harmonize science and religion. Of course, science is tied to reality. Most certainly, a religious position which is contrary to reality will conflict with science, whereas a religious position that is more compatible with reality should also be less likely to find itself in conflict with science. In other words, it's not science that's the cause of conflict with certain sets of religious beliefs, but rather it's the religious beliefs that conflict with reality.I would recommend that RoboCarp read from some of the Deist thinkers, such as Thomas Paine who's been called "The Father of the American Revolution". While conservative (to be euphemistic) Conservatives denounce Paine as being an atheist, Paine's position was that it was the Christians who were the atheists, since they had chosen to deny the "God of Nature" in order to worship a Man. In his "Age of Reason", Paine describes his religion in that he believed in One God, the God of Nature, and no more -- a Unitarian position, even though Paine was more closely associated with the Quakers, compared to Christians who are Trinitarian.In Paine's view and in the view of most Deists, as I understand it, science is "natural theology" one of whose goals is to learn more about the Creator by studying His Creation. Years ago on AOL's web pages (no longer extant) a good Christian grandfather wrote about what he called "God's First Testament", which is the world; in his presentation, the Bible is the Second Testament whose purpose is to prepare us to read the First Testament, though the sad reality is that that Second Testament has blinded so many believers to the First and infinitely more important Testament. Along the same line is the filk song, The Word of God (last of four verses):

quote:

---

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

---

But the sad reality is that such enlightenment as Deists may enjoy is lost to "true Christians". Deism does not agree with "true Christianity" and hence is heretical. Even though the bridge the OP envisions may be there, not only will "true Christians" spurn it, they will also do their damnedest to burn it down.

Well, he used the phrase "near perfect compromise". But it isn't. We're not voting on how much of a god there ought to be, we're disagreeing on how much of a god there actually is.

I think that his "near perfect compromise" is one that a Deist might be able to agree to. A "true Christian" would not. Therefore, as far as a "true Christian" would be concerned, no deal.My position is summed up by the joke about the militant agnostic: "I don't know, and neither do you!"No, it is in fact not "near perfect compromise". For that to happen, the "true Christians" and other related folk would need to agree to the Deist creed, which they plainly and clearly do not agree to.

I think you mean between science and God. To me, Deism is a convenient way for sinful humans to comfortably believe in a Creator that lets them do whatever they want and Whom obviously thinks we can make it without Him(Her It)Edited by Thugpreacha, : spellcheck

well he kind of does let us do anything we want from rape to murder to genocide the only one stopping us is us . And we do make it without him during the dark ages one could say Europe's population was 99.9999999% very devout Christian im talking fanatically devout to god and yet it was the worst time in history for the population the plague, the inquisition, tortures, famine, .... But when we turned away from god via science we have food, we eradicated the worst diseases, .... Its almost as if he wasn't there at all dont you think and we just stooped living in a fantasy world and started to live in reality

Frako raises a very good point there. When has God ever stopped us from doing anything? And that includes Man's gross misrepresentation of an "All-Loving God" by committing the most heinous atrocities in His name. Clearly, there is no need to invent a Creator Who lets people do whatever they want, because we already have that and have always had that throughout human history and prehistory.Rather, as I understand the history, Deism grew out of the rational examination of the world that was part of the Enlightenment. As we learned more and more that "Acts of God", such as lightning and floods and plagues, actually had natural causes instead of being the direct actions of an angry god; witness the furor raised among the faithful by Ben Franklin's lightning rod. The Deistic view of a clock-work universe being allowed by the Creator to run on its own was their own attempt to reconcile religion with the reality that they could clearly see for themselves.But even that was not necessary in order to reconcile science and religion. All that should be required would be for religion to stop holding unnecessary beliefs that are contrary to fact and which places it in opposition to science and reality.And really, which kind of Creator would you find grander? A highly competent one whose Creation is able to run completely on its own without interference? Or a schlockmeister who has to constantly intervene to keep his Creation working?

Science deals with what we know. Religion deals with what we believe.I see no reason why the two should not be able to exist together.

When Jesus said he was Truth, (i.e.; the ideal or concept of what it is that corresponds one-to-one with Reality), he was exposing his "father" as the eternally unfolding Reality which sires Truth in its wake.Once the Bible reader wraps his head around that idea, Deism in nul and void.Existence itself is the almighty that reigns over the living.
We all must bow to Reality or our species will become extinct.For man, Truth is savior from such a fate.
And the spirit of God is the network of natural laws which is the Force behind the unveiling of the next frame of Reality into which we and all life is thrust, moment by moment.Far from inert and absent, this Creator God of the Bible is the active power behind the existence which cries out endlessly, "I am," and "you, the living, must adapt of disappear."

Hi RoboCarp and welcome to the fray.There are a number of folk here who are Deists, I am one. Pretty much nails it. Personally I think\believe every person\being has their own path to enlightenment, and one's path may not be valuable to another, just as there are many paths to reach a mountaintop.An important issue for me is to avoid as much as possible making assumptions or accepting beliefs as valid based on words alone, but to test them against reality\creation (objective evidence) and consilience with what we know to be valid (logically valid). One worldview that has less contraindications\problems\inconsistencies than another is then logically considered a better indication\picture\explanation\description of reality.Thus we make the assumption that objective evidence truly represents reality, and the better we understand that evidence, the better is our understanding of reality. The counter assumption is that objective evidence is illusion and meaningless. The first leads directly to scientific investigations and logically rational thoughts, while the second goes nowhere, begging the question of what purpose having a thinking brain serves if everything is mad fantasy (and summarily ejected by Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy). Faith and philosophy are areas of thought outside science as well as in science, and specifically include untestable concepts that preclude a scientific approach in a strict application. Science is a tool to understanding how the universe works, and as such it is a tool for Deists to use to understand the reality\creation, but it can't answer why it was made the way it is or whether god/s exist. We can accept that man may not (likely is not?) the end product of creation, but a step on the path.What we get from science is approximations, approximations that are fine tuned every time a theory is tested or new knowledge is discovered, but approximation just the same ... and what we get from philosophy are logically consistent (hopefully) guesses about reality beyond science ... hopefully informed educated guesses rather than WAGs (wild-ass guesses).As such deism must tend to agnostic (undecided) positions rather than absolutist\fundamentalist positions where objective evidence fails.Enjoy.