Classic vs. Modern Deism

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Classic vs. Modern Deism

Post #1

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

The agents of modern deism are spreading as deism becomes a more accepted philosophy. Nihilists and anarchists attack the lexicon because that's what they do. Thus we're loaded up with all kinds of hyphenated deism, from ceremonial-deism to (I swear to God) Christian-deism. This watering down of deism has also resulted from merely trying to appeal to a wider audience. You can only bend something so far before it breaks.

If you take the only real core tenet of deism, God being not interactive, and undermine or discard it, the word becomes worthless--as I fear some people want.

Classic Deism accepts most any philosophical possibility as long as it maintains that tenet, which I call the Prime Directive, and which narrows things down immensely. Speculating on WHY God would do that (to maintain our free will, IMNTBHO) is fine, but probably meet for another thread. There are also extensions of deism such as pandeism and panendeism, which are well and good, but they're really just speculations on top of speculations with God still being an unknown.
Truth=God

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Classic vs. Modern Deism

Post #2

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

According to Thomas Paine, Deism is the belief in God based on Nature and Reason. That definition does not preclude a God who interacts with his creation or answers prayer. It does not necessitate such interaction, but neither does it preclude it.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Classic vs. Modern Deism

Post #3

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John

Many deists during that period, at least here in the US, including at least Paine and Washington, believed in divine providence, a sort of general guidance of the world towards the good. I even used to believe in prophesy and a sort of divine providence for individuals.

But I came to realize that God, if It exists, must not interact at all. Our environment run by natural, rational law must be preserved in order to continue to facilitate our rational use of free will. I've come to realize the importance of free will is more important that I first supposed. In fact, God's sole purpose for creating the universe is to naturally spawn creatures with free will, with no evidence for (or against) the existence of God. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly. It is a divine gift, sharing free will, because God limits Itself by doing so, making Itself vulnerable, since we can choose to commit immoral acts, and reject God by rejecting Truth. God is Truth and Truth is God.

But yes, whether we can call that "Classic Deism" or not is debatable. It is a small but at the same time a large step. I view modern deism as being all the hyphenated deisms like what I mentioned in the OP.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Classic vs. Modern Deism

Post #4

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]
"If you take the only real core tenet of deism, God being not interactive, and undermine or discard it, the word becomes worthless--as I fear some people want."

So, the world is worthless if there is no deity who cares about you. The world gains worth for me, not because there are those who care about me, but because there are those I care about. In other words, if there is no god who cares about us that does not mean that there is no one who cares. Even if you don't!

:study:

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Classic vs. Modern Deism

Post #5

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]
"If you take the only real core tenet of deism, God being not interactive, and undermine or discard it, the word becomes worthless--as I fear some people want."

So, the world is worthless if there is no deity who cares about you. The world gains worth for me, not because there are those who care about me, but because there are those I care about. In other words, if there is no god who cares about us that does not mean that there is no one who cares. Even if you don't!

:study:
God does not interfere because It cares greatly. The whole purpose for Creation is so that we develop full self-awareness and thus can receive God's gift of free will. This absolutely means that God cares about us deeply, which is why God must not interfere. Why would God create the Universe and then just walk away

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #6

Post by Thomas123 »

ThePainefulTruth ( bits and pieces from this thread in random order)

"In fact, God's sole purpose for creating the universe is to naturally spawn creatures with free will, with no evidence for (or against) the existence of God.

 Our environment run by natural, rational law must be preserved in order to continue to facilitate our rational use of free will. 

God does not interfere because It cares greatly

The whole purpose for Creation is so that we develop full self-awareness and thus can receive God's gift of free will."

.........Thomas123
I do not necessarily disagree with you on a very general level .
I am confused by the logic sequencing however.

Reading your submissions has me wondering about your exact position.

Have we free will from the natural law setting or are we on a quest to get it, that is being overseen, by a God who doesn't leave and who apparently cares?

Can you explain yourself, Please!

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #7

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Thomas123 wrote: ThePainefulTruth
.........Thomas123
I do not necessarily disagree with you on a very general level .
I am confused by the logic sequencing however.

Reading your submissions has me wondering about your exact position.

Have we free will from the natural law setting or are we on a quest to get it, that is being overseen, by a God who doesn't leave and who apparently cares?

Can you explain yourself, Please!
I'm not sure what you mean by "the natural law 'setting' ", but if you mean that we derive free will from our existence in a universe run by rational, natural law, then yes. We acquire free will automatically when we become fully self-aware during our toddler years.

Being fully self-aware makes us aware what others like us feel when we help or harm them--which is a built in self-enforcing moral code. Yes, some can and do ignore that "conscience", but we ignore it at the heavy spiritual cost of knowing we've become evil.

And I wouldn't characterize all this being "overseen" by God which implies an interactive component, but as being watched with great interest by God. Given the way society views the revealed gods, it's very hard for anyone to come to grips with the idea of a non-interactive God--that and the all important value of free will, the single reason for creating the universe. An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly.

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #8

Post by Thomas123 »

The Paineful Truth
" Our environment run by natural, rational law must be preserved in order to continue to facilitate our rational use of free will. "

ThePainefulTruth
"I'm not sure what you mean by "the natural law 'setting' "

I mean the same as you!

Thomas123
You talk about,.. " a built in self-enforcing moral code"
And.."God's sole purpose for creating the universe is to naturally spawn creatures with free will, with no evidence for (or against) the existence of God."

I believe that our moral code is ,simply ,what we do. I believe that all life forms have their own moral codes, or ways of doing things. I believe that we are one among many, including all life forms going down to insects , plants etc

We are probably the most sophisticated but not unique and definitely not the sole reason for a creation.

ThePainfulTruth: "But I came to realize that God, if It exists, must not interact at all."

Thomas123: Despite a certain similarity in our rhetoric , I reach the opposite conclusion and, believe that God is constantly active and interactive in "" Our environment run by natural, rational law"...as you describe it.

Are you saying that God cares more about us than other species.

You stated that God cares, has God attitudes of caring towards different things, ie a human and a mouse.?
I do not think God has anything like this.

What do you think?

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #9

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

You talk about,.. " a built in self-enforcing moral code"
And.."God's sole purpose for creating the universe is to naturally spawn creatures with free will, with no evidence for (or against) the existence of God."

I believe that our moral code is ,simply ,what we do. I believe that all life forms have their own moral codes, or ways of doing things. I believe that we are one among many, including all life forms going down to insects , plants etc

We are probably the most sophisticated but not unique and definitely not the sole reason for a creation.
I think all life besides us, even younger than toddler humans, is innocent, that is, not fully self-aware. What do I mean by "fully"? I mean aware that other humans are aware of me as I am aware of them being like me, and that we that are fully self-aware, are so because we know the permanence and inevitable universality of death.

A few higher animals have a primitive degree of self-awareness, even displaying mournful behavior, but not fully so. This of course certainly doesn't mean that we are the only fully self-aware beings in the universe, or that AI may one day may become so. The indicative characteristic of full self-awareness is desire or want, as it is distinguished from drive to obtain the necessities for physical survival.


Are you saying that God cares more about us than other species.
If they aren't fully self-aware, yes. Without it, we react on instinct instead of through morality. Another indicator of full self-awareness is the pursuit of Truth, which is not an arbitrary demarcation. Most if all animals don't have the capacity to even understand the concept; while many humans have the capability to understand it but they don't, or rather, won't.
You stated that God cares, has God attitudes of caring towards different things, ie a human and a mouse.?
I do not think God has anything like this.

What do you think?
I think God created the universe to spawn fully self-aware beings, and for that purpose only. The only troubling part of this for me, is what that means for pre-toddler humans. I also hate to think of what that means for dogs. For the time being, I treat them both as gray areas which we just have to wait to find out about, if there is a Hereafter. Meanwhile, we treat higher animals humanely and otherwise live moral lives regardless of whether there is a God or Hereafter. The burden we must learn to shoulder is to live with the doubt--and that burden is lightened enormously if we don't continually make up things to have doubts about.

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #10

Post by Thomas123 »

Thomas123
In truth, there are many fundamental differences between our two attitudes towards God.

ThePainefulTruth
I think all life besides us, even younger than toddler humans, is innocent, that is, not fully self-aware. What do I mean by "fully"? I mean aware that other humans are aware of me as I am aware of them being like me, and that we that are fully self-aware, are so because we know the permanence and inevitable universality of death.

Thomas123
Does an animal need to be fully aware of its fellow species?
Does an animal not feel or know death?
What is the big deal for toddlers in your logic of God?

ThePainefulTruth
" the desire to want"
" the pursuit of truth"

Thomas123
You describe these as hallmarks of developed, non- innocent awareness. All species want, including toddlers.
Surely the pursuit of truth by a human can only be subjective fantasy.To imagine being the only exponent of such a self- elevated facility is to dismiss our lack of understanding of real truth as an irrelevant consideration. What wonderful ways have species in approaching and pursuing real truth,? You also appear to apply human dominion on this planet as being the ability , and the right ..to think above. This deduction would place the human in a greater proximity to God. Why?

I do not accept this conclusion from the facts.

ThePainefulTruth
"To live with doubt and to not make up things to be doubtful about"

Thomas123
It is not a great conception of God, in my opinion to live in doubt and actively pursue, the avoidance of challenging realities.

I have no such doubts and if God cannot fulfill my own personal mandates then my freewill and reason will logically reject God.
We get to choose how to believe in a real God by facing everything, ie ,we stress test the concept.
You cannot logically have reservations about toddler innocence and on the other hand practice avoidance of enquiry.
Thank you for responding to my enquiries and discussing your personal views about God.

Post Reply