Whatever happened to Deism?

[undertakermat_49]

In mainstream society there is often talk of an intervening God in the western religions or no God at all. Personally, I was a strong atheist because I do not appreciate any religion where gays and women are second class citizens according to foundational texts. The more I try to imagine how everything came about, the closer I come to a single entity responsible for the unification of the 4 forces, perhaps being in the 10th dimension and being responsible for the collisions of universe (if you want to accept M theory). This God has no judgment, no sight, no knowledge, it has nothing but the ability to act upon its own nature. Many of the founders of the U.S. were deists, but since that time there has been a decline in the number of deists. Is it that Atheists are so inclined to not believe in the western religions that they immediately say there is no God? Can anyone explain why there so few Deists?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by undertakermat_49

In mainstream society there is often talk of an intervening God in the western religions or no God at all. Personally, I was a strong atheist because I do not appreciate any religion where gays and women are second class citizens according to foundational texts. The more I try to imagine how everything came about, the closer I come to a single entity responsible for the unification of the 4 forces, perhaps being in the 10th dimension and being responsible for the collisions of universe (if you want to accept M theory). This God has no judgment, no sight, no knowledge, it has nothing but the ability to act upon its own nature. Many of the founders of the U.S. were deists, but since that time there has been a decline in the number of deists. Is it that Atheists are so inclined to not believe in the western religions that they immediately say there is no God? Can anyone explain why there so few Deists?

Because it's an essentially unfounded hypothesis with no application. It's only supported by the first-cause argument, which is rationally unsound. Without evidence, the most reasonable position is no position.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Because it's an essentially unfounded hypothesis with no application. It's only supported by the first-cause argument, which is rationally unsound. Without evidence, the most reasonable position is no position.

At the risk of nitpicking, the first cause argument is no more rationally unsound than the alternative which is that the Universe (or Multiverse) is self-creating, for which there is no evidence in the slightest.

As for the OP, it's mostly due to a combination of people taking issue with its philsophical justifications and instead favouring atheism (as per our very own Fletcher), its criticism by mainstream religions owing to its association with atheism (which always seems a bit odd but hey) and a broader evolution of deism into a broad-base set of personal beliefs rather than a unified belief. As with all things in life, religious beliefs are fluid and subject to change and refinement. It's when they're made immobile that the problems arise.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

At the risk of nitpicking, the first cause argument is no more rationally unsound than the alternative which is that the Universe (or Multiverse) is self-creating, for which there is no evidence in the slightest.

I don't see how that's nitpicking; I never suggested that such a belief was any more reasonable. Though a nitpick of my own: believing that the universe was self-creating isn't the alternative, it's an alternative. Mind your false dichotomies. The sensible position is no position, as I said before.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I don't see how that's nitpicking; I never suggested that such a belief was any more reasonable. Though a nitpick of my own: believing that the universe was self-creating isn't the alternative, it's an alternative. Mind your false dichotomies. The sensible position is no position, as I said before.

Oh I agree, and were this purely a theoretical exercise then I would adopt such a stance on the issue. Unfortunately, the Universe does exist in practical terms as well and as such you are left with one of two possibilities - that it is either self-creating or that something created it, that something possibly (but, importantly, not necessarily) being a God or Gods. Either that or you ring-fence the entire topic which would seem out of character. There's a whole spectrum of possible explanations to choose from, but you would need to start from one position or the other.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Oh I agree, and were this purely a theoretical exercise then I would adopt such a stance on the issue. Unfortunately, the Universe does exist in practical terms as well and as such you are left with one of two possibilities - that it is either self-creating or that something created it, that something possibly (but, importantly, not necessarily) being a God or Gods. Either that or you ring-fence the entire topic which would seem out of character. There's a whole spectrum of possible explanations to choose from, but you would need to start from one position or the other.

FALSE DICHOTOMY. You're assuming that the universe was created at all; it's possible that it simply has no temporal beginning. That aside, while saying that "something created the universe" might be semantically acceptable, it's a little bit misleading. It's entirely possible that the universe was created in the same way that the stars and planets were created: purely by the interplay of matter, energy, and physical laws. Lastly, you don't need to start from any of these positions; without some good tangible evidence one way or the other, the sensible position to start from is one of admitted ignorance. I really can't stress this enough, as its absense is what I see as one of the most pronounced flaws in theistic reasoning: an insufficiently justified belief is worse than ignorance.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

FALSE DICHOTOMY. You're assuming that the universe was created at all; it's possible that it simply has no temporal beginning.

Hold on a second - when does causation require the operation of time in a linear fashion? All it requires is that a particular event or occurrence leads to or contributes to another - it has no requirement that it follow our perception of time. I can think of numerous examples (mostly, it has to be said, from Star Trek which is not the best source admittedly) where an event in the future could nonetheless cause events in the past. Leaving aside the temporality point for a moment, even if the Universe has no temporal beginning as we understand it you still need something to cause the existence of the Universe in the first place. Infinite regress does not really work as you still need something to set the sequence off.

On a separate note, given that we are talking in the context of "possible explanations for the existence of the Universe", your claim that having a choice between the starting positions of the Universe being self-creating and something creating the Universe is a false dichotomy is, with respect, quite wide of the mark. If the Universe is not self-creating, then by logical extension something else is responsible for its creation - it cannot be both self-creating and created externally at the same time. Saying it is a false dichotomy in capital letters does not make it more of one, and I believe this is down more to you interpreting "something else creating the Universe" incredibly narrowly. I made no such prescription.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That aside, while saying that "something created the universe" might be semantically acceptable, it's a little bit misleading. It's entirely possible that the universe was created in the same way that the stars and planets were created: purely by the interplay of matter, energy, and physical laws.

Where exactly did I refute that? If I recall correctly I said "there's a whole spectrum of possible explanations to choose from", and it is your inference alone which suggests I excluded the interplay of matter, energy and physical laws. Assuming that I exclude such explanations from the equations is something I find surprising and if I'm honest a tad insulting, particularly as I am a strong advocate of science in addition to believing in God. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Lastly, you don't need to start from any of these positions; without some good tangible evidence one way or the other, the sensible position to start from is one of admitted ignorance. I really can't stress this enough, as its absense is what I see as one of the most pronounced flaws in theistic reasoning: an insufficiently justified belief is worse than ignorance.

I was hoping you'd pick up on the implication of "If you are to discuss the formation of the Universe, then..." with regard to that statement, as discussed above. Evidently I need to be stronger in my implied statements. What you describe above is fine if all such discussion is precluded; however, that would be quite boring from a philosophical perspective in my view. I admit that is merely my opinion.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Hold on a second - when does causation require the operation of time in a linear fashion? All it requires is that a particular event or occurrence leads to or contributes to another - it has no requirement that it follow our perception of time. I can think of numerous examples (mostly, it has to be said, from Star Trek which is not the best source admittedly) where an event in the future could nonetheless cause events in the past. Leaving aside the temporality point for a moment, even if the Universe has no temporal beginning as we understand it you still need something to cause the existence of the Universe in the first place. Infinite regress does not really work as you still need something to set the sequence off.

Why? The whole point of infinite regress is that you can't solidly claim that you must have something to start it off. We simply don't have anywhere near enough understanding of reality to make such claims. I'd like to stress that this is my entire critique of your argument: you're assuming that the universe (or perhaps more importantly, reality) must have a beginning and therefore must have been created. I'm challenging you to justify this, so simply restating it a third time isn't going to get us anywhere.

Originally Posted by dr2005

On a separate note, given that we are talking in the context of "possible explanations for the existence of the Universe", your claim that having a choice between the starting positions of the Universe being self-creating and something creating the Universe is a false dichotomy is, with respect, quite wide of the mark. If the Universe is not self-creating, then by logical extension something else is responsible for its creation - it cannot be both self-creating and created externally at the same time. Saying it is a false dichotomy in capital letters does not make it more of one, and I believe this is down more to you interpreting "something else creating the Universe" incredibly narrowly. I made no such prescription.

I didn't interpret as such; I specifically pointed out that given your wording others might. It was a comment on your wording, not your argument. And again, my claim wasn't that it could be both self-created and externally created, my claim was that it could be neither.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Where exactly did I refute that? If I recall correctly I said "there's a whole spectrum of possible explanations to choose from", and it is your inference alone which suggests I excluded the interplay of matter, energy and physical laws. Assuming that I exclude such explanations from the equations is something I find surprising and if I'm honest a tad insulting, particularly as I am a strong advocate of science in addition to believing in God. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Again, you didn't read what I said. I didn't suggest that you excluded those possibilities, I suggested that the specific phrase "something created" might invite others to. Look:

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That aside, while saying that "something created the universe" might be semantically acceptable, it's a little bit misleading.

Acceptable, but misleading. That's a literary critique, not a logical one. An argument is only as good as the presentation of it, after all. I'm a strong advocate of being as unambiguous as possible, which is probably why I find debating with you so frustrating.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I was hoping you'd pick up on the implication of "If you are to discuss the formation of the Universe, then..." with regard to that statement, as discussed above. Evidently I need to be stronger in my implied statements. What you describe above is fine if all such discussion is precluded; however, that would be quite boring from a philosophical perspective in my view. I admit that is merely my opinion.

"If you are to discuss the formation of the Universe, then unless you have a PhD in astrophysics it should be done with the explicit understanding that everything being said is pure speculation," is what I would say. Speculating without evidence or understanding is fine recreation, so long as no one thinks that meaningful conclusions will be reached.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Why? The whole point of infinite regress is that you can't solidly claim that you must have something to start it off. We simply don't have anywhere near enough understanding of reality to make such claims.

Infinite regress would require probably a topic of its own to critique properly, but in brief: infinite regress actually argues that there is no need for a "first cause", not that the claim of one is not solid. However, having an infinite regress of contingent causes provides no solution whatsoever, as by definition a contingent cause is reliant upon something else for its occurrence. For example, all of the events in the Universe are contingent upon the normal operation of the Universe. Merely saying that each cause relies upon the others does not work as they would have to come into existence simultaneously and would therefore be non-contingent and contingent at the same time. That does not work logically. In order to sustain the causal chain, you need a non-contingent cause of some form or another - it may be a God, it may well just be the Universe itself. It does not require something to "start it off" so much as to sustain the observable causality - merely introducing doubt without providing an alternative is no response at all, really.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I'd like to stress that this is my entire critique of your argument: you're assuming that the universe (or perhaps more importantly, reality) must have a beginning and therefore must have been created. I'm challenging you to justify this, so simply restating it a third time isn't going to get us anywhere.

Given you have in the past criticised me for assuming opinions on your part, you will forgive me if I find it ironic that you now do the same. I have advanced no such claims; indeed, all I have said - and I do not see how I can make this any clearer - is that if you are going to attempt to explain the existence of the Universe, then you will do so either from the position of self-creation (and therefore no "cause" is required) or that it has a cause of some kind. That cause need not be a temporal "beginning", and if you would care to review my posts I never actually use that word except in the context of moving away from the concept of a "temporal beginning". In all other instances, I have spoken merely of "existence". By all means critique and criticise my argument (it is nowhere near perfect) but please do so on the terms I actually use.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I didn't interpret as such; I specifically pointed out that given your wording others might. It was a comment on your wording, not your argument. And again, my claim wasn't that it could be both self-created and externally created, my claim was that it could be neither.

Self-creating and having no cause are exactly the same thing expressed in different words. If something creates itself, by definition it has no cause. Your claim of neither therefore is more of a linguistic exercise than a standalone position. On the wording point, given that I actually say "but, importantly, not necessarily" in the context of whether said cause takes the form of a God or Gods, and that a God or Gods is only a possibility - thereby leaving all options open - there is no real justification in drawing such a conclusion. Without that caveat, I may be inclined to agree, but considering I expressed quite an agnostic position in that regard there was with respect a certain degree of interpretation on your part. I have not entered into this with any intention of justifying the first cause argument or God as an explanation of the existence of the Universe.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Again, you didn't read what I said. I didn't suggest that you excluded those possibilities, I suggested that the specific phrase "something created" might invite others to.

With all due respect, I feel that has more basis in your reading "God" into everything I write rather than in what I actually said. "Something created" has all manner of possible meanings beyond the application of prescription, and in this case "something" could be, among others, the collapse of a previous Universe, an experiment by transdimensional lifeforms, the operation of space-time or a deity. As I have already stated above, I inserted a quite clear qualifier that a God or Gods was only a possible explanation and not the default option by any means. Interpreting it as such is only possible with the use of external factors, and over that I have very little control.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Acceptable, but misleading. That's a literary critique, not a logical one. An argument is only as good as the presentation of it, after all. I'm a strong advocate of being as unambiguous as possible, which is probably why I find debating with you so frustrating.

If we are to resort to personal attacks, I could quite easily say I find these debates frustrating as well. I am an ardent believer in calling a spade a spade, and have strived to say EXACTLY what I mean. I appreciate I do not always express things in the most straightforward manner, and if confusion arises I am happy to change my choice of words to suit. However, I find the claim that I am being ambiguous a bit of a low blow if I'm honest. The specific linguistic point I have already discussed so repetition is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

"If you are to discuss the formation of the Universe, then unless you have a PhD in astrophysics it should be done with the explicit understanding that everything being said is pure speculation," is what I would say. Speculating without evidence or understanding is fine recreation, so long as no one thinks that meaningful conclusions will be reached.

I wholeheartedly agree that it's speculation - at the same time, it could be argued that the entire field of philosophy is speculation. Very few philosophical arguments have their basis in empirical evidence, after all (see for example Plato's Forms), and if they do it is tangential at best.

This has gone considerably off-topic, and to be honest I'm finding the process tiresome rather than enjoyable, so consider this me throwing in the towel. We've addressed the OP's question so the rest of this has become pretty redundant, and I'm sure we can both put our energies into more constructive discussion. As such, I tip my hat and bid you good day.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

If we are to resort to personal attacks, I could quite easily say I find these debates frustrating as well. I am an ardent believer in calling a spade a spade, and have strived to say EXACTLY what I mean. I appreciate I do not always express things in the most straightforward manner, and if confusion arises I am happy to change my choice of words to suit. However, I find the claim that I am being ambiguous a bit of a low blow if I'm honest. The specific linguistic point I have already discussed so repetition is unnecessary.

I'll respond to this, as it seems to be the only thing worth responding to: this somewhat amusingly demonstrates what I mean. Saying that I get frustrated debating with you wasn't meant as an attack, or an accusation of being unclear. I get frustrated because you almost without fail seem to misinterpret what I've said, even when I think that I've been very clear. It's my lack of clarity I get frustrated with, not yours. I fancy myself a teacher, so I necessarily take very great interest in my ability to make myself understood by others. Finding someone with whom, despite my best efforts, I seem unable to be clear to feels like a failure on my part. I hope that alleviates any frustration you felt.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I'll respond to this, as it seems to be the only thing worth responding to: this somewhat amusingly demonstrates what I mean. Saying that I get frustrated debating with you wasn't meant as an attack, or an accusation of being unclear. I get frustrated because you almost without fail seem to misinterpret what I've said, even when I think that I've been very clear. It's my lack of clarity I get frustrated with, not yours. I fancy myself a teacher, so I necessarily take very great interest in my ability to make myself understood by others. Finding someone with whom, despite my best efforts, I seem unable to be clear to feels like a failure on my part. I hope that alleviates any frustration you felt.

Looks like I've got a lot of humble pie to eat now then.

Apologies for the general brusqueness in that last post - I wasn't in the best frame of mind when I came on the forum (family arguments - gotta love them...) and in hindsight the Religion forum was a bad choice of places to hang out. It's not an excuse so definitely mea culpa. With the benefit of a clear head and hindsight I can see where you're coming from; at the same time hopefully you can understand how that could come across as how I thought it was meant. Without being aware of that context, I genuinely believed you were saying that you found it frustrating because I wasn't being unambiguous. Hence the general going-off-on-one. Have to say, I'm not sure whether I should be impressed at my achievement (if such a word can be used for misinterpreting nearly everything) or genuinely very worried about it!