I was looking over a site on deism and I think I will post what's been going through my head while reading it. Here's the site. http://www.deism.com/index.html
Deism Defined
Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer.
Okay right here I already have an issue with this concept. We shouldn't presuppose anything. We should simply look at the evidence and follow where it leads, to the best of our ability without preconceptions. So if deism is just based on a preconception it already fails.
The superstitions of the man-made "revealed" religions are NOT the natural state of humanity. The cause of our God-given reason being overrun with these man-made myths and superstitions is very simple.
Yeah... Only problem here, your God-given reason is a man-made myth.
ACTIVE people promoted these falsehoods.
Hypocrites!
Here they define a few things.
Cult: In Deism, a cult is an embracing of unreasonable beliefs by a group of people. Based on this definition, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all cults because their members suspend their God-given reason in order to believe or accept the unreasonable dogmatic teachings and superstitions such as God giving real estate as a gift to the Jews, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, faith-healing (as just one example of faith-healing being a superstition, if faith-healing was REAL there would not be anyone suffering from mesothelioma and corporations would not be required by law to pay out millions of dollars per case in REAL damages) and Mohammed's ascension to heaven, among many more false and unreasonable claims. Because Deism always promotes free and independent thought and reason, it is impossible for Deism to become a cult.
How is a belief based on a preconception reasonable? That sounds rather unreasonable to me, so by the definition this site is provided you could put deism in this category along with the rest of those religions mentioned. Not saying it is a cult, just pointing that little bit out. Granted it doesn't come across as bat guano crazy, but still...
Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.
Personal observation huh? So this is just supported by untestable personal experiences? There's a reason why personal experience get's thrown out as evidence. We can't double check it to make sure the conclusion the individual who had the experience came to is accurate or not. It's very easy for us to be mistaken, this is why in science we run tests and have others independently verify that what we concluded is accurate or not.
If this is suppose to all be supported by innate human reason why is my innate human reason scream BULL!!!!? If this really is as this site claims based on preconceptions and personally experience, do I really need to spell out how this will likely lead to faulty reasoning?
okay it says deist prefer to use the term trust rather then faith. So let's look at that term as they define it.
Trust: Trust is confidence in a person or thing based on reason and experience.
Sounds well and good until we consider the reason is faulty and the experience is unexamined by nature.
Q&A
Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it? Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them, he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest was up to Providence.
This is rather interesting and I thought it was just "God did it and went back to bed" so to speak. Though this does seem like it would create a non unified deistic view.
Is Deism a cult? It's impossible for Deism to be a cult because Deism teaches self-reliance and encourages people to constantly use their reason. Deism teaches to "question authority" no matter what the cost.
Let's look back at that definition of cult they provide.
"
In Deism, a cult is an embracing of unreasonable beliefs by a group of people."
As I already pointed out it's unreasonable to base a belief off preconceptions and personal experience. It's great that it teaches self reliance and all that, it's good it question authority, question everything. But it doesn't seem to step back and question it's own position in an objective manner.
I don't think their definition they provide takes it out of cult status, but I would agree based on other definitions I've run into such qualities do not fit that of a cult.
This is already getting long and I just got out of the definition of deism. I noticed a couple articles specifically mentioning atheist so I will take a look at one of those.
Atheism's Weakness (I wonder if this well be like the atheist's nightmare? aka a banana...)
The question that arises about nature is: is it a creation, eternal to nature, or an accident within nature. The Deist will maintain that it is a creation, but Deists will differ as to degree of involvement on the part of the Creator in the process. The atheist will counter that it is either eternal, or accidental. The final resolution of this problem will eventually be up to science to settle.
We are already dealing with a straw man. Most atheists and no scientists are making the claim of it all happening by accident. It's kind of hard to say but if they mean nature by the physical material world ranging from the subatomic to the cosmic we aren't saying it's always been here either. Since it's misrepresenting the opponents position, it's a straw man argument.
To begin, let us look at nature as an ever changing and shifting painting. Science attempts to understand what the paint and canvass is composed of, the relationship of the individual paints, and the brushstrokes that are involved in the final product. But, what about the painter? If one admits that nature is similar to a painting, than it is not too far a leap to conclude that a painter exists, or at least existed at one time.
I almost can't believe they used that tired argument. Do I really need to point out the problem here? We already know that the argument that everything needs a creator just leads to the question, who created God? of course the whole things rests on the assumption that it has to be a who in the first place. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "if we can say God always existed, why not save a step and say the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang always existed?"
The atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with Deists or even theists. The appeal here is to science as an authority which cannot be challenged. Unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems.
The use of science is far from an appeal to authority. Science by it's nature is meant to be challenged.
First of all, science makes no claims about God one way or another, so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but the scientific layman asserting it.
Doesn't this kind of contradict the last statement that we are relying on an appeal of authority? Of course in science we don't make claims of God one way or the other, that's because in science we only makes claims based on evidence, so it can't make a claim of God.
This article seems to make it sound that regarding that something with no evidence doesn't exist is an unreasonable stance, but we regard countless things like magic pixies, dragons, or unicorns as fictional and non existent because we have no evidence of their existence. Things that do not exist will leave no evidence, so it's reasonable to assume that which has no evidence doesn't exist. Though that doesn't mean we have to be closed minded to the possibility that we may be wrong. Really it's just a suspension of belief until proof can be presented.
Second, science for all its great accomplishments is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know, even on this planet. So to conclude that a discipline, which has limitations here and now, somehow can conclude that something beyond its immediate ability to study is the final word, is logically speaking, a fallacy.
And concluding that something with no evidence exists based on a preconception and personal experience as the final word is logical? Claiming someone relys on science is just saying they are logical.
Science itself is somewhat bias as well. It suffers from nearsightedness; what it cannot observe directly or indirectly, it ignores.
Perhaps it is bias to only what we can observe, but this is far from a failing in the method. I would think it's far better to hold a "bias" on basing our knowledge on what can be testable by independent agents that hold a bias to ones person views. Science gives us a powerful tool in using our reason and challenge authority including the authority of our own preconceptions and personal experiences, a tool I would think any deist would jump at using if they really do want their position to be based on reason. This article seems to so far treat this method as if it apposes reason.
So where does the Deist stand? The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe. The belief in God in no more illogical than the belief in Extraterrestrial life forms. Nevertheless, despite the present lack of evidence for E.T. life forms, few scientists would outright dismiss them.
That's because of the mathematics of the existence of life on other planets makes it very unlikely there are non. We don't have such mathematical predictions of God's existence.
Such a being, or beings, cannot be dismissed as impossibilities.
Most atheists don't make this claim. Many do consider it possible but very unlikely.
(I feel like I'm just arguing creationist BS here)
The atheist demands that the Deist, or theist, provide evidence for the existence of God.
That's because as they are making the positive claim of existence it's up to that person to provide the evidence for that existence. Just as if I were to make a claim of there being an invisible flying elephant over head and you didn't believe me that even such a thing existed. It would be up to me to prove that it does exist not up to you that it doesn't.
They continually resort to logical fallacies of their own, for example, a common one is the Petitio principii (begging the question) fallacy; it goes something like this: there is no God because we find no evidence of God in nature. But is this true? No. We presently do not know enough about nature to make such a conclusion, eventually, the possibility that there is a God could be proven.
As stated before many just suspend belief in the face of lack of evidence and are waiting for more information to be presented rather then just jumping to conclusions. Of course the assumption that God doesn't exist is far from a conclusion and is wide open to change the second any evidence is presented.
The atheist has no evidence that the universe is eternal or accidental; they are assuming that scientific speculation somehow equals scientific fact.
As already stated not claiming the universe is eternal or by accident and those who do use the scientific method don't regard speculation as fact.
We have the painting, but to dismiss that there is a painter is illogical,
Not when we consider the properties of said "
ainting".
unless there is evidence that it is either an eternal painting or an accident.
This bs is just going to just keep getting rehashed isn't it?
So far all science has offered is speculation based on drawing inferences from the available data [which is far from complete]; nevertheless, since the evidence is not complete, nor fully understood, sweeping generalizations by atheist on what exists and does not exist are groundless.
As pointed out things that don't exist have no evidence they exist. God fits such criteria. So such an assumption is not groundless.
Atheists like to shift the burden of proof from themselves to their debating opponents; in short, the believer in God must prove God, but the atheist will not defend his position that the universe is either eternal or accidental.
We got nothing to defend, most aren't making a positive claim just suspending our belief until further notice. A claim of existence can be nothing but a positive claim as such requires defending.
Often this tactic works, the believer will then try to make an argument for God, only to have the atheist demand that the believer first define God in some clear manner. Once the believer makes this mistake, he loses the debate.
This is not an unreasonable request given the ambiguous nature of God across the tens of thousands of religious beliefs and denominations there in. It gives both parties grounds to work from. If the belief really can't even stand defining what the believer believes it's a very weak position in the first place.
We are still in the process of understanding the painting, so trying to define the painter is doomed to failure; the believer must recognize this tactic and avoid it.
Basically this seems to be saying "I don't know what I believe but I believe it."
Deists should feel free to openly state that there is absolutely no evidence against a Creator being, or a Creation, and that all skeptics have to offer is scientific speculation on very limited data.
Then there is no point in taking that extra step based on a preconception, which has a big chance of being wrong and can't no be reexamined to determine if it's wrong or right.
Deists believe there is something more; that is not unreasonable, it is very much human and rational. That "more" is God.
No it's reasonable to speculate the possibility of something being more and to look for it. claiming that this "more" is God is jumping to conclusions. It could just as easily be a magic sandwich as it could be God.
Deists are willing to wait for the answer and are keeping an open mind on the matter; it is the atheists, who fear waiting. Simply put there is no evidence against God, nor is there evidence against a Creation [design]. The burden of proof does not lie on the open mind, but on the closed dogmatic mind which assumes that we already know all there is to know.
It is not waiting for the answer as it has already just to conclude the answer is "God did it". It's not an open mind that jumps to the conclusion of existence when no evidence of such existences is present. The burden of proof does lie on those claiming existence. We do keep an open mind, and we do not claim to know all there is to know.
At the bottom the page actually provides this rebuttal to the Atheists Weakness that I just went over.
http://www.deism.com/atheismrebuttal.htmI do have to commend the site for including the rebuttal but I do have to subtract points for it's comment at the top of the article I just went over "
I'd like to thank Peter Murphy for this outstanding article." This put's a really bad foot forward for this site trying to represent deism.
