Gettin' In Tune

Jefferson was a deist. Thomas Paine was a deist and perhaps the quintessential deist. Jefferson can be considered a "christian-diest", which ever that means. Jefferson belheld that Jesus was one of the most moral teachers of humankind, but he also claimed that morality and superstitution should be segregated.

I do beleive that Jesus had many morals to be taught. Jesus's morals are hybrids of stocis, platonics, and pagan rituals. Since the era of Jefferson, Paine, Washington, deism has made a revolution of some sort. I do not now the exact changes that that have been made in the past 250 years, but the changes exists.

They never had a deist church during the era of our forefathers and today we still don't have a deist church.

Gettin' In Tune

Perhaps, you are right. And perhaps, I still have to examine the deistic relationships with revelead reilgion. Currrently, my understanding is that deist do no subsribe to revealed religion like theist.

IMO, I think the danger in fiding 'god' is in revealed religion. I think the beauty of find god 'god' is through reason, intellect, science, and nature.

I think Theist can give 'god' attrubites. I am not sure if deist do. If they do, they do so with logic and skepticism.

They are theistic church, but not deist church. Unitarian Universalists church is the only suitable church for deist, but it is still not a diest churhc.


They are have debates upon deist if a deist church is ever possible. Some of us, believe that an academy serve for the erudition to find the nature of god through reason would be better suited than a church to find god through dogma and superstition.

Gettin' In Tune

Deism may have a theology, but it is not a revealed theology, but a natural theology. Natural theology has roots in the philisophy of religion and methaphysics. The First Cause argument is metaphysical and a natural theological inquiry. It is difficult to demarcate the line between philisophy of religion and theology.

A theist takes God to be axiomatic and self-evident and subscribes to revealed religion.

A deist (at least I do) uses reason, nature, and the 'preponderane of the evidence' to postulate a diety's existence. The 'preponderane of the evidence' leaves room for doubt and skepticism, which also brings me to agnostic conclusions.

An agnostic beleives that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown and cannot be known until more evidence is provided.

If the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; then I have a reasonable doubts that 'god' exists along with a reasonable doubt that 'god' doesn't exist; these reasonable doubts make me agnostic.

If the standard being used is by the "preponderance of the evidence", then I am deist, because I believe it more likely 'god' exists than doesn't. I do not think a theology is needed to arrive at this conclusion.

Jayhawker Soule

This impresses me as a poor use of the phrase "natural theology", which counted among its proponents the likes of Thomas Acquinas and Maimonides.
And here I believe you simply reveal a mild bias against theism. There exist whole schools of self-avowed theism that do not fit your mold, including those represented by Kaplan, Whitehead, and Weiman.

Again, "Deism vs. Agnosticism" is, in my opinion, a false counterposition between ontology and epistemology. As for "Deism vs. Theism" - or, equivalently, "Intelligent Design vs. Theism" - I find the distinction to be arbitrary and of little worth.

pseudonous

I think your right that a deist has a natural theology. Some theists subscribe to revealed religion others do not. There are a very large number of theological systems. It is also possible to reject Revelation and still believe in a supernatural god.

Besides a natural theology, all deists attribute the characteristic of rationality to god. They may disagree on whether god is just a rationally understandable universe or a rational being. Either way, deists consider gaining an understanding of the world to be religious work. This is another way I distinguish between a deist and an agnostic, since the agnostic considers this learning to be secular.

Also, I think that a claim about the probability of gods existence is a claim about the properties of god. Certainly, a theology is not needed to arrive at this conclusion. However, in reaching this conclusion you create a theology (a philosophy which holds a belief in the existence of god).

Gettin' In Tune

Excellent point

Non-excellent point. One can easily distinguish 'god' from religion. Deists can be just as secular as agnostics, but they search for "whether god is just a rationally understandable universe or a rational being" through reason and not religion.

Again I think it comes down to 'a priori'.

In the broad sense you are right. Theology is needed to reach a conclusion of 'god'. Like philosophy, theology can be broken down into many different branches. I think deist theology is not tied to religion. In general, deist theology concerns itself with the the understanding of 'god' and 'spirituality'.

One of the main reason why I am not a strict adherent to agnosticism is that it seems to lack desire in understanding what 'god' is or what 'god' is not. Perhaps, this is MY IGNORANCE, but agnostics do not concern themselves with the pursuit of what 'god' is or is not. Many agnostics arrive at agnosticsim because theism and atheism cannot provide sound empirical answers. The sit on "the fence" out of thoughtful intelligence that other belief/philosophical/religios systems cannot provide 100% accurate answers.

Again out of my ingorance and generalization, agnostics seem to "wait" for answers while other's purse them. Please correct me if I am wrong. Currently I consider myself an agnostic-diest. Personally, it is the deist in me that pursues and the agnostic in me that waits. Both contain skepticism, but my deism has a rational belief while my agnostic refutes it with empirics. (Perhaps, it is late and I am not making sense)

While my 'current deist theology' may concerns itself with 'god', my theology is absent of both religion and spirituality.

Gettin' In Tune

I appreciate your comment, but do not know how to exactly respond to it. I appreciate constructive criticism. Could you please elaborate on why my use of "natural theology" was poor.

I would love to hear more about the false counterposition between ontology and epistmology.

pseudonous

I think your missing my point. I agree a deist believes there is a priori proof that a god exists and that god is rational. What I was trying to say is after having reached these conclusions the deist views the study of the world around them differently than an agnostic. For instance, if a deist believed the universe was god then to a deist the study of the universe is the study of god. This is not the case for an agnostic. It is in this sense I called it a religious pursuit for a deist. I understand you don't want to use words that will confuse you with a more popular version of theist but I don't know what other words to use in order to point out this distinction other than secular and religious. My main point is that after reaching an a priori conclusion of a rational god, deists are free to make a posteriori arguments about the nature of god. This is a big difference between an agnostic and a deist.

I only meant in a broad sense. I just want to point out that you say a deist concerns itself with the understanding of spirituality. Perhaps you could just use the word spiritual instead of religious in the point I made above.

I don't think this the right view of an agnostic. Consider that many agnostics were raised in religious families. Personally, I spent many years reading philosophy and I even read the bible twice. Still you can only spend so much time looking for an answer when there are many questions to consider. I think this view becomes completely untenable when you consider that the "typical theist" thinks god is an old man with a beard in the sky while many agnostics consider god to be a fuzzy logic category. Who has really done more thinking?

The way I view it, if god is the universe then I can eliminate the word god from my vocabulary as redundant. This is not something I think a deist would want to do. For a deist the existence of god is tightly wrapped up with their need for an objective meaning to life (their ontology). An agnostic on the other hand is perfectly willing to assign it's own meaning to life. An agnostic is very much concerned with the limits of knowledge, this is another reason it would be a mistake to view an agnostic as someone who sits on a fence waiting for answers. There are many very interesting questions in life, questions which by some may be called spiritual. To an agnostic they are simply very interesting questions. This is, again, why I would say that the study of the universe or world is a religious or spiritual pursuit to the deist but a secular pursuit to an agnostic.

Gettin' In Tune

I think language is a barrier and I did miss your point. Let’s see if I understand. A deist begins with a religious/spiritual perspective of the cosmos and then can pursue “truth” in a secular manner with the aim of their original perspective.

An agnostic begins their view of the cosmos as secular and continues on that path

A deist pursuit can be shown as: religious/spiritual/a priori knowledge ==> secular and rational reasoning ==> religious/spiritual/rational conclusions

An agnostic pursuit can be shown as: no a priori knowledge ==> secular and rational reasoning ==> unknown/rational conclusions


Perhaps this is where I abandon my deism or need a better understanding of spirituality. I do not have spirituality in deities or supernaturalism. Here is a link to a recent thread on spirituality:

http://www.agnosticforums.com/genera...periences.html


I am wrong. I think agnosticism is difficult to grasp and I do not yet fully grasp it's philosophical/belief structure.


Then I could argue that you are not an agnostic, but rather a pantheist. If you think that god is the universe and also transcends it, then you would be a panentheist.

If this is true, then I have to rethink my deism, but I think you are wrong. I still have to study the evolution of deism in the past 250 years, but originally our founding fathers were deist and believe that god made the universe and then abandoned it. By abandoning the universe gives power to the individual; a power to create their own objective meaning of life that is not tightly woven around ‘god’.

Perhaps this is another language barrier.

Again disagree. I think the study of the world/cosmos is secular pursuit to both deist and agnostics. Perhaps, I am making a generalization, but deists demarcate ‘god’ and religion. That is why I believe that both deist and agnostic have a secular pursuit in the understanding of the nature of the cosmos. Perhaps, the beginning and ending of the journey is different for both.

As I tried to state before:

A deist pursuit can be shown as: religious/spiritual/a priori knowledge ==> secular and rational reasoning ==> religious/spiritual/rational conclusions

An agnostic pursuit can be shown as: no a priori knowledge ==> secular and rational reasoning ==> unknown/rational conclusions

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps because not all answers are created equal.