Theism Without a Revelation is Deism
Theism is used as a springboard for defending Christian theism, for if theism is true then Christianity isn't far behind. I disagree.
Theism without an adherence to a particular branch of theism reduces to deism, for the three main branches of theism (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) all depend upon embracing a particular revelation from their God, along with the "correct" interpretation of that revelation. Without a revelation from God theism collapses into deism, which is basically equivalent to the philosopher's god, since deism is not a set of beliefs; it is a method whereby a particular theological viewpoint is adopted based upon reason. Anything not supported by reason is to be rejected by the deist. And moving from deism to Christian theism is like flying a plane to the moon. [Deism went through four stages which traveled from continent to continent and flourished in the 16th-18th centuries, although people still maintain it today.]
10 comments:
Geisler and Turek took this approach in their apologetics book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. They opened by setting up a false dichotomy between theism and atheism. (The argument really is between their brand of theism vs. all other brands of theism plus atheism.) They then argued against the strongest atheistic view possible, i.e., atheists positively assert that there is no God, period, a definitive ontological statement. They ignore the epistemological position by which many atheists assert that belief in God is not warranted by the evidence available thus far. Therefore, they don't believe in god, but recognize the possibility that persuasive evidence may yet be uncovered. This epistemological claim is not equivalent to that of agnostics, who claim they simply don't or can't know anything about god. Anyway, the first part of Geisler & Turek's argument is used to assert a deity. They don't acknowledge that they've argued for a deistic deity. They smuggle in the assumption that the deity is, of course, a personal being, etc., their kind of god.
The second part of their argument is used to pit their holy book against other holy books. At this point they give the usual conservative arguments about the inspiration and infallibility of scriptures, etc.
Geisler & Turek's writing is smooth stylistically. I can see how it easily affirms the faith of Christian students who accept their premises without question. More critical readers, however, will easily uncover the hidden premises, false dichotomies, etc., upon which they base their arguments. I read this book when I was struggling with my Christian faith. I quickly realized that, if this is the best evidence Christianity has to offer, then the faith is not worth holding.
Excellent post! This point isn't made often enough. When Christians make reasonable arguments for a creator, I often say "you're going to convert me to Islam before we even get to Christianity!" I say this because I find the idea of the trinity to be absurd.
All deists agree that there is one God beyond the world who created it. All deists agree that God does not intervene in the world through supernatural acts. However, not all deists agree on God’s concern for the world and the existence of an afterlife for man. Based on these differences, four types of deism are discernible.
The first type of deism is largely of French origin. According to this view, God is not concerned with the ongoing operation of the world. He created the world and set it in motion, but he has no regard for what has happened or will happen to it since then.
In the second form of deism, God is concerned with the natural happenings of the world but not with the moral actions of human beings. Man can act rightly or wrongly, righteously or wickedly, morally or immorally. It is of no concern to God.
The third type of deism maintains that God governs the world and that he does care about the moral activities of man. Indeed, God insists that man be obedient to the moral law that he has established in nature. However, man has no future after death. When one dies, the final chapter of his life is closed. There is no life for man beyond the grave.
The fourth type of deism contends that God regulates the world and expects man to obey the moral law grounded in nature. This type also holds to a life after death for man, with rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked. This view was common among both English and American deists of earlier centuries.
Copied and pasted from:
Geisler, N. L., Geisler, N. L., & Watkins, W. D. (1989). Worlds apart : A handbook on world views. Rev. ed. of: Perspectives, c1984.; Includes indexes. (2nd ed.) (148). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
John: I entirely agree with your comments here, which is why I insisted on the distinction in the previous thread.
(I do use the terms 'deistic' and 'theistic' God differently, using them to refer to the 'inherent nature' of the postulated being. A 'deistic' God, in my usage, does not, and will not interact with 'his Creation.' He is, inherently, the 'pure spectator' waiting to see 'how it all turns out.' A 'theistic' God interacts with his creation, or some part of it, in some way. This does not, necessarily, imply his interaction is with the inhabitants of Sol III. We may be minor features in a 'creation' built for the inhabitants of Mizar VII or wherever else -- as Christians assume their theistic God is only interested in us, and not the inhabitants of the other billion planets in our Galaxy.)
Evie: an excellent point. "They don't acknowledge that they've argued for a deistic deity. They smuggle in the assumption that the deity is, of course, a personal being, etc., their kind of god." Again, this is the problem with 'opening the door' by the 'weak atheist' position. You invariably have to be prepared to respond to the inevitable arguments of Christians who use it for more than it's worth.
John:
Our comments crossed. I appreciate your description of the different 'deisms.' Obviously mine is of the first sort.
I would be fascinated to discover the rationality behind the third and fourth varieties. They seem to be -- as most religious thought is -- based on a 'geocentric' or specifically 'earth-centered' Creation -- even if Earth isn't the actual center of a 'small' universe, it is presumed to be the central thing in God's mind.
Furthermore, if God, 'by nature,' doesn't interact with the Universe, how can they tell what his 'intentions' are? How in the name of any God you choose can they justify a belief in an afterlife?
While I certainly believe that theism and deism are quite different I do believe that deism (the belief in a creator and, generally, sustainer) makes Christianity more LIKELY than atheism. This is not because of any great logical deduction but because of common-sense. In other words, if there is a God of some sort wouldnt we expect that God to want to interact at some point in time with some representative of that creation? Most atheists often seem uncomfortable with allowing the possiblity of any sort of supernaturalism however, hence the reason that most atheists are also naturalists by default.
In other words, if there is a God of some sort wouldnt we expect that God to want to interact at some point in time with some representative of that creation?
Upon what basis would we expect this? Perhaps this is some grand experiment that God started, and is just jotting down His notes. Is it not the height of arrogance to assume that, even if a deist God existed, He would be interested in your miniscule corner of the universe? It certainly doesn't necissarily follow as you suggest, even from inference.
Gordon:
Nice One! We have just gotten finished explaining that deism means 'belief in a Creator who does not interact with his creation.'
You carefully misunderstand it as meaning "the belief in a creator and, generally, sustainer" -- the italicized words are meaningless since a 'sustainer' is unecessary -- and then ask "wouldnt we expect that God to want to interact at some point in time with some representative of that creation?"
Even ignoring the fact that non-interaction is essential to this idea of God, why would we expect this? We have no motivations for why such a god acted in Creating a Universe. Why were 'people' his main idea? maybe they are simply an unlooked-for by-product to something else he intended.
And again, why would he necessarily pick us, over the other sapient races on different planets that almost certainly exist?
Hmm afew things to say, none of which are terribly important but to clarify my position. Firstly Shygetz, I am well aware deism means a belief in God without interference. My point was essentially that for MYSELF the idea of a God who does nothing inside his own creation seems unlikely. Ultimately its a subjective evaluation and I recognize that, but I think many people come to much the same conclusion. Concerning Prup's comments id love to see how you treat other human beings if you dont recognize there is something special about us. Most of the universe is empty but here on this little blue sphere something has emerged out of the universe to wonder upon itself. That, even on an atheistic hypothesis, is incredibly special and significant. As for your comment on why other sapients would not be considered by God I have two things. First of all he may certainly well have a relationship with other intelligent beings, it doesnt effect anything. Now its alittle more difficult to put a number on how many (if any) other intelligent beings there may be right now, the Drake equation isnt terribly helpful here and certainly on a secular hypothesis evolutionary development to intelligent beings should be considered incredibly unlikely even on planets which allow for such processes to occur, which will be few comparatively speaking. This is for a massive list of reasons such as star proximity, environmental hostility etc
PS- Dont bring up the "maybe there are other types of life argument". Im aware of the possibility but at the moment there are no models which are plausible and most scientists find the plausibility of a non-carbon based lifeform highly unlikely. Even if it were the case it doesnt effect anything though, I myself would think a being made of pure hydrogen or something would be pretty interesting.
Dont bring up the "maybe there are other types of life argument". Im aware of the possibility but at the moment there are no models which are plausible and most scientists find the plausibility of a non-carbon based lifeform highly unlikely.
You presume too much.
Concerning Prup's comments id love to see how you treat other human beings if you dont recognize there is something special about us.
Probably with considerably more humility than you are used to. You look at a microscopic region of an immense universe and decide you are special? We are still arguing about if life existed on Mars, just next door!
First of all he may certainly well have a relationship with other intelligent beings, it doesnt effect anything.
Of course it does; you may be an unintended and unimportant side effect of God making the universe like this so he can interact with the Ceteans of Omicron V, rendering you a completely pointless speck from the POV of a this God. Even if I grant a god, and even if I grant that it interacts with its creation, and even if I grant that it would prefer to interact with sentient portions of its creation than non-sentient, you STILL have an unjustifiable leap to go to a god that wants to interact with you! And that is not even mentioning all the other unjustifiable leaps you have to take to get from a god that wants to interact with you to Christianity.
Post a Comment