Deism

[samclem]

One good thing about traditional religions is that they to some degree immunize one against oddball secular obsessions.

One good thing about secularism is it that it, to some degree, immunizes one against oddball religious obsessions.

- Ever seen an elderly person spending 6 hours a day with various prayer cards, beads, and devotionals?

- Ever seen an atheist fly a jumbo jet into a building for the sake of atheism?

 

[twaddle]

One good thing about traditional religions is that they to some degree immunize one against oddball secular obsessions.

Remember "I am the Lord thy God,
Thou shalt not have false gods before me."

Anyone tempted to say B.S on this should first have a look at The Decalogue, by Krzyztof Kieslowski. Possibly the most profound movie ever made.

Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick described it as the only masterpiece he could name in his lifetime

Wow, endorsed by both Ha and Kubrick. Good enough for me! I'll order it on Amazon for xmas!

FWIW, I don't discount the idea that religions are useful. Given the amazing cultural persistence, consistency, and adoption of relgion, there is clearly something important there. In fact, I could even be convinced that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that man needs to survive.

 

[thefed]

Deism has several attractive features. Most importantly, it recognizes the value of reason.

The problem, from my perspective, is that Deism presumes the existence of a god. Why? If you believe that rational observations and deductions based on observation of the natural world are important, then why start with a supposition that, ultimately, even if the rational, observable evidence indicates otherwise, that there must be a creator? Seems self-contradictory.

Deism made a lot more sense in a time when we didn't have natural explanations for much of the world around us.

Agreed. But the great thing about Deism (at least modern deism) is the promotion of free-thinking. The premise that there is an all-mighty, omnipotent GOD is rejected in deism. A deist recognizes that there is/was something above and beyond mankind's comprehension that began and/or perpetuates life and nature as we know it. We cannot comprehend it...obviously...or this conversation wouldn't be happening. This realization is GOD in a deist sense. Different for everybody of course. And it's different for every deist because deists use their OWN reasons to come upon conclusions.

Reminds me of a quote by Thomas Jefferson, which I paraphrase in the end :
"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of the Earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator, while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order."

The world we live in is SO complex, and we obviously don't undertand all of its beginnings, laws, causes and effects....therefore I believe that some incomprehensible power has affected these things. Until I can use my ability to show REASON to the contrary.




Nobody KNOWS how it happened (creation,evolution, etc)...and recognizing that we DONT KNOW and

 

[thefed]

Right On.

If there was no GOD then why is it that people spend so much time trying to disapprove his existence?

GOD BLESS

I'm not sure I follow?

Soo....there must be a lock ness monster because people try to disprove its existence?

And Big Foot?

And UFO's?

And Aliens?


Lots of time spent disproving those....so they must exist.


Can you elaborate?

 

[thefed]

I just want to say that I think the forum members here are AWESOME for being able to discuss religious philosophy without getting into crazy rants and getting the thread locked....very civil! i thrive on these kinds of philospohical discussions, and appreciate everyone's cooperation! i know a few boards that i'd never consider posting this on!!

 

[haha]

All these posts about how there is no God are similar to all those posts about why none of us are at all guilty or embarrassed about our roles as consumers who not not produce.

As Oly would say, "Ya shure, you betcha!"

Ha

 

[youbet]

YouTube - let the mystery be

Thanks Ha! I had no idea all those music videos were available on Youtube.

Just spent an enjoyable 30 mins listening to/watching Iris Dement solo and performing with James Taylor, Emmy Lou Harris, John Prine. Just excellent.

Guess I need to go explore the internet a little more!

Thanks again!

 

[gandalf42]

A Quote from the original link, pertainign to revealed religion:


Revelation, or revealed religion, is defined in Webster's New World  Dictionary as: "God's disclosure to man of Himself." This should read, "God's alleged disclosure to man of himself." For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our belief in the person or institution telling us it is so. Heresay.

Interesting. So unless communication comes to you in the form you find acceptable..you ignore it? ....How's that working for you?

Response to spouse: "Sorry honey, can't talk, I'm only taking emails at the moment."

Or..ignore the phone call from the boss as only face to face communication is currently being accepted?

Hmmm. Good luck with that!

 

[thefed]

Interesting. So unless communication comes to you in the form you find acceptable..you ignore it? ....How's that working for you?

Response to spouse: "Sorry honey, can't talk, I'm only taking emails at the moment."

Or..ignore the phone call from the boss as only face to face communication is currently being accepted?

Hmmm. Good luck with that!

'


You missed the point of the quote totally...your rebuttal seems aimed in the wrong direction? (but i must answer your question. YES!! And it's going well. when the wife talks to me in an unacceptable manner...i enable my selective hearing. When an email comes to me in an unacceptable form, ie junk mail, i ignore it. when a phone call comes from an unacceptable source or at an unacceptable time, i do ignore it. )

Back on topic .... Read this quote :

For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true.

Revealed Religion: An organized system of belief in and worship of God based on the belief that God communicated/communicates with certain individual founders/members of the particular revealed religion. As mentioned above, by believing in any of the revealed religions a believer is not putting their trust in God, but in the person/people making the claim of receiving the divine revelation.


How can you argue with that ??

 

[thefed]

And before I goto sleep, check out this quote from Einstein...very deistic!


"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

 

[RetireeRobert]

I've come to find myself in philosophical agreement with singer-song writer Iris Dement on this subject. She says it like this in her song "Let the Mystery Be." So, I'll just let you folks fight it out...... I think I'll just let the mystery be......

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they they all came from
everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
when the whole thing's done
but no one knows for certain
and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be

Nice quote. Probably lots of us can agree this is the Great Mystery.

 

[RetireeRobert]

Not to get to pedagogical, but I did not say there was evidence that there was no creator.........


BTW, after I posted I re-edited my post to get rid of that link to the other site, as I figured it will cause a lot of angst. If you agree, you can remove it from the quoted portion of the text in your post. Otherwise--well, I'm no longer totally responsible if folks go there and have a fit (and the responsibility for spreading heresy will be on YOUR everlasting soul. )

Thanks for clarifying your points. Your use of the term "pedagogical---were (are) you an educator/professor?

And I did delete your link from my last response quoting you. I don't want any (more) demerits attaching to my soul.

 

[RetireeRobert]

- There's nothing in the observable universe that requires a creator.

Not to get to pedagogical, but I did not say there was evidence that there was no creator.


To go back to a few of your earlier points, you have made both statements above.

Do I take it then you are agnostic? You find no evidence in the observable universe for a creator, but you also have no evidence there is no creator.

And a second question, about the intangible force/attitude called "love": would you consider "love" to be a kind of evidence different than "evidence in the observable universe" or the "natural world"?

 

[gandalf42]

'


You missed the point of the quote totally...your rebuttal seems aimed in the wrong direction? (but i must answer your question. YES!! And it's going well. when the wife talks to me in an unacceptable manner...i enable my selective hearing. When an email comes to me in an unacceptable form, ie junk mail, i ignore it. when a phone call comes from an unacceptable source or at an unacceptable time, i do ignore it. )

Back on topic .... Read this quote :

For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true.

Revealed Religion: An organized system of belief in and worship of God based on the belief that God communicated/communicates with certain individual founders/members of the particular revealed religion. As mentioned above, by believing in any of the revealed religions a believer is not putting their trust in God, but in the person/people making the claim of receiving the divine revelation.


How can you argue with that ??

No, you missed my point. What you are saying is that unless revelation comes to you in a way you deem as acceptable, i.e. direct and only direct, the revelation is invalid, unimportant and can be ignored.

The Bible says " In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.." Hebrews 1:1

Your response is "Sorry God, you didn't talk to me direct so you wasted your time."

Well, I don't see anywhere, even by Deist standards, where God has said how he will hand out revelation nor any documentation that the Deists have been appointed the divine revelation communication standards committee.

But suppose he followed your premise of direct only, how many of the world would give him a Scrooge-like welcome?

"I don't believe in you!" said Scrooge.

"Why do you doubt your senses?"

"I've never seen a spirit before. Why should I see one now? You could easily be an undigested bit of beef, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato." Scrooge chuckled. "I warrant there's more of gravy than grave about you!"

From the parable of Lazarus:

"Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them."

'No father Abraham," he said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent."

He said to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Luke 16:29-31

 

[Martha]

Fed, as you explore, you might enjoy reading Spinoza and about pandeistic philosophies.

 

[samclem]

Do I take it then you are agnostic? You find no evidence in the observable universe for a creator, but you also have no evidence there is no creator.

And a second question, about the intangible force/attitude called "love": would you consider "love" to be a kind of evidence different than "evidence in the observable universe" or the "natural world"?

The term "atheist" has such powerful (unwarranted) connotations that I don't drag it out in polite conversation. I used to think I was an agnostic. Technically, there's may be no way to disprove the existence of a God/creator/Thor who chooses to remain hidden. But, since I see no evidence of such a being, and no need for one, the most straightforward thing is believe there is none. That makes me an atheist.

By the way, almost everyone is an atheist. Unless an individual believes in Zeus, he is an atheist regarding Zeus. So, (as has been pointed out elsewhere), Christians are atheists regarding thousands of gods, all with really believable stories of the origin of things, and most with promises of great reward in the hereafter. I just add one more god to the list of gods they don't believe in.

I accept the emotion of "love" for what it is--an emotion, just like hate, greed, etc. I don't think any supernatural being invented these emotions.

 

[RetireeRobert]

I accept the emotion of "love" for what it is--an emotion, just like hate, greed, etc.

So you agree love exists. But you cannot "see" love. Why do you belive in this thing you cannot see, touch, smell, etc?

You call it an emotion. So you do not believe love is a "force"? You do not believe this thing called "love" can effect changes in the world? Same questions for "hate", "greed", etc.

 

[twaddle]

So you agree love exists. But you cannot "see" love. Why do you belive in this thing you cannot see, touch, smell, etc?

If you wanted to, you could measure the emotions via neurotransmitters, neural activity, and hormones. You could even induce emotions "artificially." And you could explain these emotions via evolutionary theory -- they're useful (bonding, mating, the fight/flight response, etc).

It's not romantic to reduce emotions to their biological mechanisms, but at least they're not ghosts or mythological creatures -- not that there's anything wrong with those things.

 

[Zipper]

"Show me an individual who wears his religion on his sleeve (most Americans), and I'll show you someone who was brainwashed in infancy."

-Zipper from secular Canada 2007.

Although I must admit, we do have our share of [MODERATOR EDIT] up here.

 

[thefed]

"Show me an individual who wears his religion on his sleeve (most Americans), and I'll show you someone who was brainwashed in infancy."

-Zipper from secular Canada 2007.

Although I must admit, we do have our share of [MODERATOR EDIT] up here.

that quote alone sums up my ideas of religion....

of course the youth will beleive the same things as their parents if they have it shoved down their throat from day one...its all they know

 

[twaddle]

Sort of on topic article in the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc&_r=1


There is in fact a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with the universe and its laws. Which “came” first — the laws or the universe?
If the laws of physics are to have any sticking power at all, to be real laws, one could argue, they have to be good anywhere and at any time, including the Big Bang, the putative Creation. Which gives them a kind of transcendent status outside of space and time.
On the other hand, many thinkers — all the way back to Augustine — suspect that space and time, being attributes of this existence, came into being along with the universe — in the Big Bang, in modern vernacular. So why not the laws themselves?

 

[Wags]

More college students seeking spiritual answers

Interesting USA Today article "More college students seeking spiritual answers".

More college students seeking spiritual answers - USATODAY.com

GOD BLESS

 

[samclem]

So you agree love exists. But you cannot "see" love. Why do you belive in this thing you cannot see, touch, smell, etc?

You call it an emotion. So you do not believe love is a "force"? You do not believe this thing called "love" can effect changes in the world? Same questions for "hate", "greed", etc.

Love, greed, hate are "forces" only in the figurative sense. They are emotions. I believe that if there were no animals, there would be nothing that we call "love" in the universe (and I say "animals" rather than "humans" because it's possible that many of the things higher animals feel may come very close to human emotions. Elephants cry, and chimps murder each other in rages that look an awful lot like human hate).

I believe in lots of things that cannot be adequately defined or described. Beauty, pornography, the taste of a potato chip--none of these things could be described adequately to an individual who had never experienced them directly. But, I don't think these things are physical forces, and I don't believe they created the universe.

The "good news" (gospel!) is that humanity is inexorably moving away from theology and that we, as a species, now largely agree that there are natural explanations for most things (fire, gravity, weather, etc) and that we are in charge of our individual and collective welfare. A thousand years ago, nearly every society looked to spirits and otherworldly explanations for everything that had happened and was going to happen. The enlightenment and the age of reason eclipsed the age of faith. There have been steps backward to be sure--the Arab world was the seat of much academic thought and progress before "events" threw them back into the dark ages (where they largely remain). Similarly, now and again those with a theological bent are ascendant in our own country. But Europe has largely come into the light and won't be going back, and the same is true in much of Asia. In many places where many people still believe in spirits, at least the theology retreats in the face of science and reason over time (though I guess there are still some people who think the earth is 6000 years old and that all the species of the earth lived within walking distance of Noah's house and that they all fit on the ark). Most people of faith pray when they are sick, but they hedge their bets by visiting the doc. Good!

Reason is winning out, but the pace is painfully slow.

 

[ERD50]

Love, greed, hate are "forces" only in the figurative sense.

One view I take is: emotions = gravity.

I don't really understand gravity - to most people, it just *is*.

The very fact that we have survived this long as a species indicates to me that we:

1) Have just enough 'greed' and 'self-ish-ness' in our DNA to make us fight for our lives, so that our species survives.

2) Have just enough 'love', 'empathy' and 'self-less-ness' in our DNA to make us support our community (even to our own apparent detriment), so that our species survives.

Otherwise, we wouldn't. Survive, that is. Or have that DNA. They seem inseparable to me.

If you learn the rules of gravity (even w/o understanding the why or how), you can generally use it to your advantage, or at least get along with it. But every once in a while, when you least expect it, it sneaks up behind you and wallops you. Greed and Love are like that too.

So, emotions just *are*. I suspect that small differences in the greed/love balance among individuals explains much of the conflict in the world (and this forum!). I also suspect that that conflict is necessary for our survival. Because it *is*.

-ERD50

 

[twaddle]

So, emotions just *are*. I suspect that small differences in the greed/love balance among individuals explains much of the conflict in the world (and this forum!). I also suspect that that conflict is necessary for our survival. Because it *is*.

That's the same view I have about religions: they exist, therefore they must have been useful. For some reason, man seems to need gods. My god is the scientific method. I'd be seriously freaked-out if that stopped working. I'd probably even be too afraid to hunt, gather, or procreate if the rules of the universe stopped behaving like I expected them to.