Would you/Could you class yourself as a 'Adeist'?

[Robin]

Actually I think the idea of a Deist God is less plausible than an immanent God.

I mean if the universe was created intentionally by a purposeful intelligence, wouldn't it be for some reason?

If you mean something that is not a purposeful intelligence then it is in scope of any definition I have for God.

 

[Dragoonster]

I suppose if you refuse to entertain such notions, it might make sense to call yourself an adeist. I'm not sure if "adeist" would be a subset of "atheist" or a category all its own.

Don't need to refuse to entertain the notions, just need to not believe the notions are in any way supported by evidence.

I agree that adeist is a subset of atheist, just like ahinduist, or amonotheist.

Lack of evidence. Unlike the various interventionist gods, the concept of a deistic creator god doesn't contradict what we observe about reality, so in that sense it's more plausible to me than interventionist or personal gods. But without any evidence that it exists, I assume it doesn't exist until such evidence appears.

Agreed, except I find them equally implausible. I don't see why a deist would have any harder a time than a specific religionist in shifting his definition of god, if/when science continues to explain things that threaten the god's definition.

 

[Mobyseven]

Just to nitpick a bit, a deist god is a creator god.

The god described in the OP is more the god of a pantheist. And yeah, I'd describe myself as apantheist. And adeist.

The question should never be, "Why shouldn't I believe?" The question should be, "Why should I believe?" There is no reason for me to suppose the existence of a pantheistic or deistic god, so I don't believe in them. That they could exist is no more convincing than the possibility of a giant naturally occurring cheese wheel orbiting Betelguese.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Lets start with the basics.
How do you pronounce "adeist"
and would you also propose "agnostodeist" or some variation thereof?

I find I am increasingly becoming a "can't-be-bothered-with-any-of-that-rubbishist".

 

[shadron]

Sagan once wrote that it makes no sense to pray to the laws of gravity. But he also concieved in 'Contact' a strange, mathematical 'God' who -whilst not being the creator of the universe- was the universe in itself. This seems close to the Einsteinian religion, yet it harbours a mind to go along with it.

First of all, Contact was a work of fiction. Just as the protagonist was not a real person, neither necessarily must be Sagan's described god.

Secondly, what I think Sagan was saying there was, "If I have to admit to a God, this is the sort of proof that I would require from Him before I believe." After reading the end of the book, I agree with those assumed (on my part) sentiments. That is what omnipotence really means. Only, I'd have required him to have done it in base 13, just to tweak a nose or teo.

 

[Robin]

Lets start with the basics.
How do you pronounce "adeist"
and would you also propose "agnostodeist" or some variation thereof?

I find I am increasingly becoming a "can't-be-bothered-with-any-of-that-rubbishist".

Shouldn't that be and "A-be-bothered-with-any-of-that-rubbishist"?

 

[Soapy Sam]

An "anabarsedist" perhaps?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You know, every time I think of something original and pithy, I do a Google search, and almost every time, somebody else has already had the same thought.

"Guy O'Teen"
"My God, it's full of turtles"
"Christland über Alles"
"Whack-a-soul"

I just coined a term for this phenomenon - "Google angst"

Yep.

Have you googled "google angst"?

 

[bokonon]

Have you googled "google angst"?

That's what the "yep" was supposed to indicate. I guess it was ambiguous, and I should have said "Yep, somebody else (in this case, a LOT of somebody elses) thought of that one already too."

FWIW, even "adeist" has a bookload of prior art.

There's nothing new under the sun.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Damn.





I need a drink.

 

[Beerina]

It's of a great regret that I have never seen Dawkins debate a renowned Deist (Yet I know not if there is one) or even a deist sympathiser.

For me, a God that cares for humanity and has a traditional 'mind of God' seems highly unlikely. But would it make much sense for me to call myself an 'Adeist' as well?

Sagan once wrote that it makes no sense to pray to the laws of gravity. But he also concieved in 'Contact' a strange, mathematical 'God' who -whilst not being the creator of the universe- was the universe in itself. This seems close to the Einsteinian religion, yet it harbours a mind to go along with it.
None of us here are under any delusions that there are things more complex and grander than what we currently understand, but is there a particular reason why we can find a deistic conception to be false like we do with the theistic ones?

To avoid getting bogged down in vacuous descriptions, I will pose the deisitic 'God' I have in mind and the one posed in 'Contact' (BTW, I am aware that Sagan was a Atheist):

1: Beyond what we currently understand
2: Is close to what we term as a 'Mind'
3: Is not attributed to the common conceptions of God. I.e., A creator of the universe and one who is has a relationship with humans.

Whether this can be even classed as a God or not is a question, but is there a particular reason to find this entity unlikely?

IIRC, in Contact, the book anyway, the aliens were apparently the second set of aliens to take over the universe, the first being even more advanced, and having left or died out or something. They left the large, long-distance wormholes ("This one's much more violent!" in the movie.) The aliens didn't know how to make the long-distance ones, just the shorter, smaller ones.

I highlight this because also, in the book, there are other hidden messages in various transcendental numbers like pi, messages that could have only been placed there by whoever created logic and math. The aliens were searching for this, too. But whether it was some traditional "god", or just yet an even more advanced alien remained to be seen.

Sagan's point was that any "real" god would leave unmistakable messages, and they would be directed to intelligence, not towards bumbling power-hungry thugs who use "faith", i.e. the opposite of intelligent analysis, in living their lives.

(By the way, that big firey whirlpool of stars in the movie was probably the alien's experiment described in the book, where they were looking for ways to get around the eventual heat death of the universe.)

 

[bokonon]

The question should never be, "Why shouldn't I believe?" The question should be, "Why should I believe?" There is no reason for me to suppose the existence of a pantheistic or deistic god, so I don't believe in them. That they could exist is no more convincing than the possibility of a giant naturally occurring cheese wheel orbiting Betelguese.

But the cheese wheel would be an arbitrary invention serving no purpose.

A deistic god, on the other hand, puts a somewhat anthropomorphic face on the creation of the universe, while serving as a placeholder for that which is still unknown, much as "dark matter" and "dark energy" are placeholders for unexplained phenomena we observe today.

I'd never argue that an atheist SHOULD believe in a deistic god. If you're comfortable living in a godless universe (and there's no reason you shouldn't be), then by all means, file it in the same bin that holds Betelgeusean cheese wheels and don't give it another thought.

I think a deistic god is still a useful alternative to the current crop of theistic gods. There's no reason for it to be anti-science. As I envision it, it's actually PRO-science, as those for whom "larger purpose" necessarily implies an outside agent can now devote themselves to discovering how the creator-god actually implemented his plan, rather than trying to reconcile reality with some outdated text they've been told is authoritative.

As an answer to "where did all this come from," a deistic god is on par with big-bang branes or whatever the current pet theory of cosmologists is. Reality itself is the text, and nothing is settled dogma.

The fact is, for better or worse, some people just WANT to believe in a god. That's why you get threads like "What can you offer in place of religion?" Atheism has one answer, but for those who still think they need something, I think a deistic god may be the best of both worlds. Light on irrational blind faith, no stoning required, can be boiled down to "first cause" and thus stay out of science's way for the most part.

 

[Lucky]

bokonon: your post does not answer my point.

I am not claiming that a sufficiently complex system other than the human brain must (or is likely to) give rise to mind. You are claiming that it cannot (or almost certainly won't). Given that there are an incalculably large number of non-biological complex systems in the universe, the claim that there are probably no non-biological minds is to say that the individual probability is essentially zero. I am saying that there is no justification for that opinion.

I don't assume that mere complexity gives rise to thought.

I don't think anyone would. There are numerous natural and human-created complex systems on our planet, for instance, that plainly don't have minds.

I think human brains evolved in response to survival pressures which don't apply in the case of "the complex arrangement of atoms in my shoe" or the universe as a whole.
...
If we ever reach the point where we are surrounded by intelligent machines, a lot of design trial and error will have gone into making them intelligent. I don't expect to see intelligence arise in machines as an emergent property, as in "Skynet became self-aware at 2:14am EDT August 29, 1997." More powerful adding machines are still only more powerful adding machines. They may become faster, but they won't become intelligent.

So far, you have said that the only minds we know of depend on vehicles that are the product of natural selection (indirectly in the case of human-designed thinking machines, if these turn out to be possible). Obviously I completely agree with this – but it misses my argument. My hypothesis depends on three postulates:

1. Sufficiently complex (whatever that means) entities other than evolved, living, reproducing creatures can possess the property of mind.
2. Sufficiently complex systems/entities of the right type (whatever that means) can arise in the absence of biological/evolutionary processes.
3. For any sufficiently complex system of the right type, the probability of emergent mind is non-negligible.

Postulate 1 will be proved when we succeed in creating thinking machines. That was my reason for introducing them into the discussion – I'm not saying they address the other two requirements. I don't know how we could go about testing postulates 2 and 3, but I believe (I have faith ) that they are in principle testable, and we will discover how to do so.

The crux of my argument is that, whilst there has to be some mechanism whereby a sufficiently complex system can arise - and natural selection is certainly such a mechanism - the emergence itself is a completely separate phenomenon. It's physics (or possibly maths), not biology. Our brains evolved by natural selection, but our minds most certainly did not. Minds emerged automatically when our brains reached the necessary threshold level of complexity – and this complexity was selected for by pressures completely unrelated to the requirement (or ability) to prove Fermat's last theorem, construct syllogisms, compose symphonies and sonnets, invent the internet, design non-biological thinking machines, etc.

If you are saying that natural selection is in principle the only possible mechanism for producing mind-supporting complexity, then be aware that your argument is dangerously close to Paley's watchmaker: it's impossible for us to envisage any way that entities sufficiently complex to support minds could have come into existence other than by biological natural selection (us) or divine creation (Paley), therefore we can assume that there is no other way. I can't refute the argument (at least, without demonstrating an alternative mechanism), but I maintain that it is logically unsound.

What kind of complexity is required for emergent mind to be possible is a most interesting question. For instance, the substance – does it have to be biological? The size of the system, in terms of the number of elements and connections obviously matters. Is the precise pattern and mode of interaction crucial? Opinions, anyone?

 

[Mobyseven]

But the cheese wheel would be an arbitrary invention serving no purpose.

Hold it. Stop. Right. There.

You're one line in, and already you've made two entirely unwarranted assumptions.

First, you've assumed that the cheese wheel serves no purpose. For all you know, I may well believe that the cheese wheel exists so that aliens who are swinging past Betelguese can stop for cheese and crackers on the way to wherever they're actually going, and maybe have a short rest (because NOBODY stays around Betelguese by choice). Drowsy hyperspace travellers are the number one source of traffic fatalaties in the Alpha-Quadrant.

Second, you've assumed that things require a purpose, completely ignoring the fact that the only purpose objects have in the universe is that purpose which we, as thinking beings, project onto them. You say that my cheese wheel has no purpose, and that the deistic god does. But my cheese wheel and the god of the deists have just as much purpose as eachother! Objectively, neither has any purpose; subjectively, my cheese wheel serves the purpose outlined above, while the deistic god serves the purpose outlined below - it puts an anthropomorphic face on the creation of the universe.

Does my cheese wheel seem a bit silly? Certainly - but then so does the deistic god: "Well, you see, there's this entity that we have no knowledge of, can have no knowledge of, can't explain where it came from, can't explain where it went to, and for which there is no evidence. And it's responsible for the creation of the universe."

A deistic god, on the other hand, puts a somewhat anthropomorphic face on the creation of the universe, while serving as a placeholder for that which is still unknown, much as "dark matter" and "dark energy" are placeholders for unexplained phenomena we observe today.

The first point you make here is a great argument for why the deistic god is no more than a human construct, and the analogy you then make is way off the mark.

The deistic god puts an anthropomorphic face on the creation of the universe - I agree, entirely. Similarly, Thor put an anthropomorphic face on lightning and thunder. Pele did the same for volcanoes. Tlaloc for rain. Hades for death. The god of the deists is but one in a long line of objects, phenomena and abstract concepts that have been anthropomorphised and deified. Why should I believe in this anthropomorphic god, when it is no more than a continuation of the long held tradition of finding human attributes in distinctly non-human objects?

Also, your comparison to dark matter and dark energy is very much a false analogy. Dark matter and dark energy are things that we can and have detected - the deistic god is something that we have not and cannot detect. The comparison is not even apples to oranges - it is apples to iguanas.

 

[bokonon]

Does my cheese wheel seem a bit silly? Certainly - but then so does the deistic god: "Well, you see, there's this entity that we have no knowledge of, can have no knowledge of, can't explain where it came from, can't explain where it went to, and for which there is no evidence. And it's responsible for the creation of the universe."

As defined, the deistic god is something we can have knowledge of. It's the kind of thing that creates the universe in which we find ourselves. The evidence for it is the universe itself. Knowledge of it can be deduced by observing the universe it created. For instance, it apparently prefers to have an irrational number for the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius, rather than the simple integer endorsed by Yahweh.

"Can't explain where it came from, can't explain where it went to" is true but irrelevant.

Why should I believe in this anthropomorphic god, when it is no more than a continuation of the long held tradition of finding human attributes in distinctly non-human objects?

I'm not saying YOU should. I'm saying that those for whom "no gods" is one too few, the deistic god is a more rational choice than the popular theistic alternatives.

 

[Mobyseven]

As defined, the deistic god is something we can have knowledge of. It's the kind of thing that creates the universe in which we find ourselves. The evidence for it is the universe itself. Knowledge of it can be deduced by observing the universe it created. For instance, it apparently prefers to have an irrational number for the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius, rather than the simple integer endorsed by Yahweh.

So, if you assume the deistic god exists, and define everything that exists as being somehow characteristic of that god, then you can have knowledge of the deistic god.

Of course, to do that you have to assume that the deistic god exists as a premise in your argument. Pray tell, can you think of any fallacies that might describe the act of assuming that the deistic god exists as a premise in an argument for how we can have knowledge that the deistic god exists.

Think of it this way: Imagine for a moment that the deistic god does not exist. If that were the case, we could not obtain any knowledge about it. Yet, the universe still exists. Pi is still irrational. All the things you list as things we can know about the deistic god can exist absent the deistic god.

So, how can we determine that the determine the deistic god exists so that we can obtain knowledge about it? Until that basic hurdle is cleared, we are assigning characteristics to a fictional entity - not obtaining knowledge about a god.

"Can't explain where it came from, can't explain where it went to" is true but irrelevant.

How is irrelevant? Positing an entity that created the universe is even more irrational if there is no kind of explanation as to where that entity came from, and no kind of explanation as to what happened to it post-creation. If the entity is somehow required to create the universe - where did it come from? Why is it exempt from this arbitrary 'law of required creators'? Why has it pissed off and left no mark of its existence - save for claims by some that the universe, which seems quite capable of existing on its own, is in itself evidence that this entity exists or existed?

I'm not saying YOU should. I'm saying that those for whom "no gods" is one too few, the deistic god is a more rational choice than the popular theistic alternatives.

Wearing a pidgeon for hat is a more rational choice than most 'popular theistic alternatives'. That doesn't make it rational, and it doesn't make deism rational either.

If someone finds it impossible to not believe in the existence of any gods, I'm hardly going to stop them. But if they want to claim that their belief in a deistic god is somehow 'rational', I'm gonna say that it sure as hell ain't.

People are free to believe what they want. They aren't free to pretend that their beliefs are all rational if they aren't. And I'm more than free to point out that belief in a deistic god isn't rational.

 

[Dragoonster]

A deistic god, on the other hand, puts a somewhat anthropomorphic face on the creation of the universe, while serving as a placeholder for that which is still unknown, much as "dark matter" and "dark energy" are placeholders for unexplained phenomena we observe today.

I'd think part of a deist's godhood's nature would be in antianthropmorphism (wow that's a typefull), that is we do not know for certain whether a galaxy or a rock has a consciousness, as there remains a slim possibility that consciousness is not solely human/brain-defined. A deist god could be the sum of the Universe's material interactions and be conscious, but not anthropomorphic (unless consciousness is a telling aspect of anthropomorphism).

(God that word is a pain.)

I think a deistic god is still a useful alternative to the current crop of theistic gods. There's no reason for it to be anti-science. As I envision it, it's actually PRO-science, as those for whom "larger purpose" necessarily implies an outside agent can now devote themselves to discovering how the creator-god actually implemented his plan, rather than trying to reconcile reality with some outdated text they've been told is authoritative.

Possibly. For current/former theists that have been outreasoned/outscienced into giving up their theism, deism would seem to merely be a similar faith-substitute.

For those incapable of or who don't have access to critical thinking, science, etc. perhaps it is a decent fall-back position. A sort of antithesis of weak atheism, where theism is an antithesis of strong atheism. The age of reason did have quite a lot of deists, perhaps they were resolving their scientific pursuits and resulting skepticism with their notion of a literal God. Jefferson was quite scathing in the OT god, but felt some reason to define a Jesus for himself, as a model or goal for parts of his moral system.

Perhaps it's a step some take. I wouldn't support it being a final step for society though.

(Well, I'm a libertarian, I don't care much what society does if it doesn't mess with me, but don't support it within a critically-thinking society's final steps).

 

[bokonon]

So, if you assume the deistic god exists, and define everything that exists as being somehow characteristic of that god, then you can have knowledge of the deistic god.

I don't think it's necessary to assume it exists currently. It may have destroyed itself in the act of creating the universe. On the other hand, it may not have. It's hard to know. Fortunately, it's also unnecessary to know. The universe has been given to us. None of us had to lift a finger, or sign a contract. I'm grateful for that. I appreciate it.

Think of it this way: Imagine for a moment that the deistic god does not exist. If that were the case, we could not obtain any knowledge about it. Yet, the universe still exists. Pi is still irrational. All the things you list as things we can know about the deistic god can exist absent the deistic god.

Sure. All we know is that this is the universe it created. Learning about that creation is the only meaningful act of worship. Whether or not the deistic god is still around, there's a whole universe to explore. So we got that going for us.

So, how can we determine that the deistic god exists so that we can obtain knowledge about it? Until that basic hurdle is cleared, we are assigning characteristics to a fictional entity - not obtaining knowledge about a god.

The only characteristic I've assigned is that it created the universe in which we find ourselves. Since we probably agree that there is a universe, and the best information we have at the moment suggests that the universe had a beginning, I'm willing to sign off on the QED. Beyond that, I don't consider it necessary to obtain knowledge about the god itself, when knowledge about its creation is both more accessible and more useful.

Positing an entity that created the universe is even more irrational if there is no kind of explanation as to where that entity came from, and no kind of explanation as to what happened to it post-creation.

I personally don't require an explanation of where the color blue came from, or where it goes when I close my eyes. I exist in the here and now, and a universe which includes the color blue is a given. The creation itself has enough mysteries to occupy my mind, but if "before and after" are the answers you require, you have a whole lifetime in which to seek them. Here's to your success!

 

[Mobyseven]

Bokonon: Could you perhaps define the type of god you are talking about a little more clearly? I had assumed that you were discussing a conscious being when you were discussing god, but your last post makes me less confident of that.

If you are discussing a conscious being, then it is irrational to believe it exists.

If you are not discussing a conscious being, then this 'god' could be anything. It could even be the laws of physics. And, well...I can define 'god' as 'my iPod'...but believing my iPod exists hardly makes me a theist. I can't see any reason why defining 'god' as 'whatever created the universe' should make a person a deist just because they happen to believe the universe exists.

 

[bokonon]

Bokonon: Could you perhaps define the type of god you are talking about a little more clearly?

Probably not. Can you define the conditions at the center of a black hole, or the state of the universe three hours before the big bang? Some things may simply be unknowable, though there may be clues about them. All I can really say is that it created the universe. If you ask me whether it has a favorite shirt, I don't know.

If you are not discussing a conscious being, then this 'god' could be anything. It could even be the laws of physics. And, well...I can define 'god' as 'my iPod'...but believing my iPod exists hardly makes me a theist. I can't see any reason why defining 'god' as 'whatever created the universe' should make a person a deist just because they happen to believe the universe exists.

I wouldn't say it's the laws of physics, though since the universe was apparently created with "laws of physics" in effect, I would say it created those too. It didn't create your iPod directly, but made it possible for your iPod to exist.

This quote from http://www.moderndeism.com/ doesn't seem to contradict "whatever created the universe" as a workable definition:

Deists have many different beliefs regarding the nature of God. This is because that nature can never truly be known but only infered from our perspective. As such, there are many different beliefs among Deists regarding what God may or may not be like. This is encouraged as Deists want all to use their own Reason and Experiences to develop their views on God and associated aspects.