Deism

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Freethinker43
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:18 pm

Deism

Post #1

Post by Freethinker43 »

I believe in God and I believe that God works through nature, specifically through evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I believe that we serve each other best when we use our God- given reason. I believe that the philosophy of Deism is the most practicable one today. Here's a link for those interested in exploring deistic tenets: http://www.deism.com/index.html.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Post #91

Post by William »

[Replying to post 90 by hoghead1]

*chuckles*

Snails are also intelligent critters.


I don't particularly see any strength in your argument re referring to other critters as intelligent as if somehow the label can only apply to the human critter.

By acknowledging the obvious intelligence in other critters, one is not saying they are human.

By your argument, only humans are intelligent.

In relation to reward and punishment - changing the terms to mean "Reinforces" doesn't change the fact that these are rewards and punishments, and in what way are these different from the way human societies are controlled?

Intelligence learns through experience. Consciousness is that which allows for intelligence and learns from experience.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: Deism explains nothing significant re GOD.

Post #92

Post by William »

[Replying to post 89 by American Deist]

Do you have anything to say about the contradictions I pointed out in my post about your position as a deist?

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #93

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 91 by William]

I definitely did not say that only humans are intelligent. I said that attributing intelligence to other creatures is anthropomorphizing, which it is, because we are generalizing from ourselves, what we are familiar with, to other creatures, the unfamiliar. All knowing is such analogous knowing. Hence, projection and anthropomorphizing are the solution, not the problem. I thought I made that clear in several previous posts.

And no, behaviorists would go up the wall with your notion that "reinforce" means "reward" or "punishment." I should know, I have an M.S. in clinical psychology. Anyhow, All "reinforce" means to the behaviorist is to increase the possibility of the response occurring. And that it, period. Please no references to internal states of mind, such as emotion, pain, etc., as all of these are aspects of our experience. You should have my old professor of psychology on the topic. One day in the lab, observing rats copulate, I shared how "horny" I thought they are. Well, they copulate like flies or something. Geeze, regular orgy going on here. I got chewed out but good, told never to attribute human sexual feelings to rats. Humans get "horny," but forget it with rats. No anthropomorphizing. Just describe their copulatory frequency. You have no idea what is going on inside them. Stop projecting human emotions into them, etc.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Post #94

Post by William »

[Replying to post 93 by hoghead1]

That is all very well, but to say - as in your example - that humans get 'horny' while other critters do not, is merely using a term (horny) to describe something which both rats and humans (and dogs etc,) do.

Why should such be described as 'horny' for humans and 'naturally copulating' for the rest of earths critters?

How does professor so-and-so know that that other critters are not feeling the same base things during copulation as human beings do?

If you had said -"look at those rats! They obviously love one another" then I could agree if the professor had pounced on you for that, but 'human sexual feelings' in relation to being 'horny'?

Perhaps the professor was conflating?

If you agree that other critters are intelligent, then that is not saying that you are anthropomorphizing.

Even if you recognize love in the relationship that other critters might show toward one another, that is still not anthropomorphizing. Otherwise you would be saying that only humans are capable of expressing love, and you would be incorrect.

Look at it another way. You think of GOD as a loving being? GOD is not human. So are you anthropomorphizing GOD?

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #95

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 94 by William]

No, the professor was not conflating. He was simply being a good behaviorist, and good behaviorists are 100 percent against anthropomorphizing. And again, attributing intelligence to animals is attributing a humanlike trait to them and is considered a anthropomorphizing, just as would be attributing " horniness." As I have said several times, I have no trouble with this anthropomorphizing. I feel it is the key to knowing. Hence, I would have no trouble attributing " love" to rats. Yes, I think our pets love us.

Consequently, as I have said, unless a genuine analogy, uniformity, likeness exists between ourselves and God, we can know nothing of God. If we cannot apply finite, creaturely attributes to god, then we can say only what God is not, not what God is, as St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized. In that case, the whole concept of God is meaningless. So yes, I am all for anthropomorphizing God.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Post #96

Post by William »

GOD is discernible within the critters.
Because the critters exist, GOD is discernible within the Planet.
Because the living Planets exist, GOD is discernible within the Galaxies.

After that, things get a little hazy...

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Post #97

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 96 by William]

Sorry, but I don't follow what this has to do with my previous post.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Post #98

Post by William »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 96 by William]

Sorry, but I don't follow what this has to do with my previous post.
It has to do with GOD being the one 'anthropomorphizing' creation with GODs consciousness. Looking from within the human form out into the greater creation, 'we' as that GOD-consciousness are able to recognize our self within the creation, depending of course, on two main things.

1: How we choose to self identify.
2: How we choose to identify others.

'Others' includes all life forms (obviously imbued with consciousness) and all forms obviously directly responsible for life forms (not obviously imbued with consciousness.)

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Post #99

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 98 by William]

Thanks for the info. I'm still puzzled, but I suppose I may gain more clarity in future posts from you.

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #100

Post by BeHereNow »

I am here as another self described (Jeffersonian) Deist.

I have read, but not studied all posts in this thread up to this point, and have only one small difference with American Deist. Otherwise, just major agreement.

The difference.

Background: As a Deist I do not believe god intervenes in the life of, humans. This is nearly identical to American Deist, with a small distinction.

American Deist correctly notes the accepted difference between Deism and Theism. Divine Insight disagreed, with a weak rebuttal, as noted by American Deist.

An impartial "general education" supports our position.

Theism
The belief in a personal god who seeks to have a personal relationship with all or some human beings
Deism
The belief in an impersonal god who created and oversees the universe but who neither has nor desires to have a personal relationship with human beings


Divine Insight is free to disagree, but this is not a made up distinction of convenience. The meaning of words is based on usage.

So, American Deist says the creator made two sorts of matter, living and non living.
I say, it might be that the creator, in the beginning, only created non living matter. At a later point in time, he/she/it tweaked the natural laws, such that life arose from non living, without violating our belief against divine intervention in the affairs of human beings.

When I say "it might be..." , that is what I mean. Also, it may have been on earth, or not.

I agree with micro-evolution. I am less confident concerning macro-evolution. I find all of the evidence to be fallacious, suspect, questionable. Not false, just suspect.
As for abiogenesis, Science has nothing but promises and wishful thinking. Life created in the laboratory was all but a done deal, fifty years ago. It has been a long time coming, and yet to arrive. This is not an argument against it, but certainly reason to question it.

I do not see divine intervention for the initial creation of life to violate beliefs of Deism. Neither am I convinced it is required.

It might be that the mechanisms of existence from the first nanosecond of our universe, allowed for life to arise from non life, and Science has not been able to accurately describe it, such that it can be duplicated. We are not talking about black holes and distant galaxies.

Post Reply