On Theism and Deism
Another response to chillin’s questions on the Ask page.
Chillin asks, “What makes theism any more valid than deism?”
Deism contends that there is a “first creator” who brought about the existence of the universe and then left it spinning on it’s own accord. This removes the personal intimacy that theism presents, stating that the God who created the universe also fellowships and participates in it. So what makes the latter more valid than the former? I’m not sure that this is a very valid question, because the perceived validity of worldviews is relative to the holder, but I will tell you why theism is more valid to me. I held a deistic theology/worldview for a few years of my life because I had some “intimacy issues” with God. Through unforeseen events in my life and the studying of the Bible, I began to see the evidence of a God who does not merely watch the universe go by, but who intervenes in a constant and personal way. In a more generalized sense, I would say that both theism and atheism are more valid in respectability than deism. Deism itself is a sort of cop out (similar to agnosticism). It seems rather noncommital, identifying a god, but to lazy to attempt to know it. This is not a complete answer, but if I presented why theism is most valid, you would surely respond by calling me closed minded. Also, discussing why theism, and Christian theism in particular, is the most valid worldview would be a book more than a post.
May 5, 2008 at 1:31 am
I wouldn’t say it’s saying there’s a god but not attempting to know it, since it’s the belief that he can’t be known and doesn’t want to be pesetered. lol
I don’t see that you answered the question again, but whatever. So what.
PS Dawkins had it right – “Deism is sexed-up atheism…”
May 5, 2008 at 1:49 am
Wow, I actually didn’t answer this one (although I definitely answered the last). Sorry, I’ve been a little sick and completely without a voice and such for a few days. A little foggy really. Here you go. Theism is more valid because if there is a God who is a creator, it makes little sense to believe that He would simply abandon His work.
And I know deism is not in definition saying theres a God, but not attempting to know it (which would be agnosticism), but does present quite a convienient excuse for apathy.
May 28, 2008 at 9:10 pm
teosinte says : I absolutely agree with this !
June 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Placatingly
.
August 30, 2008 at 3:11 am
Chillin, that’s not the deistic view of life. Deist determine the higher likelihood of God’s existence, due to the improbability of evolution occurring without divine intervention. Dawkins gave a generous estimate for theists, but even with a generous estimate for atheists (1 trillion planets in 1 trillion galaxies), evolution fails without a paradigm shift (Schutzenberger).
It goes to show your ignorance upon the subject. Dawkins is a freethinker, however, freethinkers tend to create sheep like you. Dawkins did not say that “Deism is sexed-up atheism.” He said that “Deism is watered-down theism” and that “Pantheism is sexed-up atheism.” Do your research and properly read the book.
-Deist (you can reply about it being a minor mistake, but I won’t be here)
November 6, 2008 at 5:26 am
It sounds like the author never understood Deism in the first place. Deism contends a “first creator”, but in no way takes out the “intimacy” as we participate in the “creation” — the world — on a 24/7 basis. We are part of this creation.
November 6, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Daveo,
I’m not sure you really understand intimacy. Just because the we participate in creation hardly denotes any sort of intimacy with the first creator. Being part of something certainly is not equivilant to being intimate with something.