What is the functional difference between deism and atheism?

[Wolfman]

checkmite's comments on deism here led me to start a new thread to discuss this question.

I was once a fundamentalist Christian. I am now an atheist. I didn't really run into the concept of deism until well after I became an atheist, and to me, honestly, it seems like "atheism for theists".

I don't intend that in a derogatory manner...I mean it to reflect my perception that, on a practical, functional level, there is no difference between deism and atheism. By my understanding, deists believe that a god of some kind got our universe going...but then stepped back, and has no role or even interest in it now.

Thus, the deist's life is as fundamentally removed from any sort of supernatural interaction as any atheist's. Everything that happens is a result of natural processes (albeit natural processes that follow laws originally put in place by the 'creator'). There is no divine, supernatural intervention. There is no interaction with a higher being, there are no miracles, there are no pronouncements from the heavens about what we should or should not do, etc.

So, for the deists here...other than the fact I think the universe was started by a big bang that had no divine/supernatural origin, and you think the universe was started by a god of some kind...is there actually any other practical difference in how we see the world, make our decisions, etc.?

 

[Aepervius]

I am not a deist , but taking checkmite logic to the absurd :

"Deism was not invented in a world full of atheists that it had to defend itself from "as more and more god beliefs were shown to be myths". Quite contrarily, deism was in fact a very natural, logical progression from standard theistic religions once critical thinking began to be applied to them. "

Atheism was not invented in a world full of atheist either. Atheism is actually a very natural logical progression from standard theistic or deistic religion once critical thinking began to be fully applied to them.

 

[Madalch]

I used to call myself a deist because I was tired of having to defend my non-belief to theists.

 

[Pup]

I don't see how Checkmite's description of deism differs from the "god of the gaps." It seems the goal is to retain some form of belief in the supernatural/god/religion while rejecting anything that can be proven or disproven.

What I don't get is: why is that a goal?

 

[Bob Klase]

I don't see how Checkmite's description of deism differs from the "god of the gaps." It seems the goal is to retain some form of belief in the supernatural/god/religion while rejecting anything that can be proven or disproven.

What I don't get is: why is that a goal?

For many people it's a goal because they have a desperate need to believe that it doesn't all just end for them when they die.

 

[HansMustermann]

Deism _is_ the ultimate form of a god of the gaps. Only instead of moving God just 1mm beyond where you can currently check, it goes full tilt on that.

What's the point of deism? Well, pretty much it still allows one to think that grandma is in a better place, but does away with the need for a God that is everywhere, reads every prayer, watches over you full time, and is personally responsible (and expecting thanks) for everything good happening and everything bad not happening.

Way I see it, it's kinda religion for grown ups. At some point some people grow up, learn to take personal responsibility for what they did get and to work for what they didn't yet, etc. But they would still like to think there's something beyond death or someting special about them existing. They just don't feel a need for an imaginary smothering parent which treats them like helpless toddlers.

That or they have figured out they can just pay a domina when they want to be treated like bad children. Works better than just imagining a judgmental bearded guy doing it

And that's when you get deism as a compromise, IMHO.

 

[Marduk]

What is the functional difference between deism and atheism?

Atheists have a more imaginative sex life

 

[arthwollipot]

I was once a fundamentalist Christian. I am now an atheist. I didn't really run into the concept of deism until well after I became an atheist, and to me, honestly, it seems like "atheism for theists".

Or theism for atheists.

 

[Darat]

I don't see how Checkmite's description of deism differs from the "god of the gaps." It seems the goal is to retain some form of belief in the supernatural/god/religion while rejecting anything that can be proven or disproven.

What I don't get is: why is that a goal?

I think Checkmite's original post holds the explanation, deism arose in a world in which there was an accepted premise that god/s existed.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I was once a fundamentalist Christian. I am now an atheist. I didn't really run into the concept of deism until well after I became an atheist, and to me, honestly, it seems like "atheism for theists".

Because it is in a way. It's a way for someone to discard most religions while still have a "gap" to fall for in need.

there is no difference between deism and atheism. By my understanding, deists believe that a god of some kind got our universe going...but then stepped back, and has no role or even interest in it now.

The bolded part is where you are wrong. The deist claim is that god does not intervine now, however, it does not mean he can't change his mind at some point later in the future.

Essentially, that's the difference between atheists and deists.

 

[Pup]

I think Checkmite's original post holds the explanation, deism arose in a world in which there was an accepted premise that god/s existed.

That's true on a collective basis, certainly. But why for an individual? In other words, if a person is willing to give up in believing in the divinity or divine knowledge of Jesus, Mohammad, the Pope, Joseph Smith, etc., which is also an accepted premise in their cultural upbringing, why not give up all god(s) as well? They're going to somebody's hell either way.

Bob Klase may have nailed it:

For many people it's a goal because they have a desperate need to believe that it doesn't all just end for them when they die.

But it hardly seems compatible with skepticism or logic to think something is true just because the alternative is too scary/depressing/etc.

 

[Checkmite]

So, for the deists here...other than the fact I think the universe was started by a big bang that had no divine/supernatural origin, and you think the universe was started by a god of some kind...is there actually any other practical difference in how we see the world, make our decisions, etc.?

I haven't seen that there is a difference, in practice. The nature of the "deist God" is such that it simply wouldn't come up in any sort of scientific discussion of any kind. I'd be willing to wager that most people wouldn't be able to discern a difference between an atheist or a deist at all unless the latter specifically mentions his belief.

 

[Wolfman]

The bolded part is where you are wrong. The deist claim is that god does not intervine now, however, it does not mean he can't change his mind at some point later in the future.

Essentially, that's the difference between atheists and deists.

An interesting take on it...is this your own personal conclusion, or have you drawn it from other deists? Having known a number of deists myself, it doesn't really seem to reflect an accurate picture of their beliefs.

I haven't seen that there is a difference, in practice. The nature of the "deist God" is such that it simply wouldn't come up in any sort of scientific discussion of any kind. I'd be willing to wager that most people wouldn't be able to discern a difference between an atheist or a deist at all unless the latter specifically mentions his belief.

Yeah, that's what I kinda' figured...was just curious to hear how a deist would perceive it

 

[GrandMasterFox]

An interesting take on it...is this your own personal conclusion, or have you drawn it from other deists? Having known a number of deists myself, it doesn't really seem to reflect an accurate picture of their beliefs.

For the record, I came to this understanding out of a similar but out of context topic regarding alien visitations.

However, let me just make sure I'm clear on this, I'm not saying a deist says god will change his mind later or that he hopes, prays or wait for it to happen.
It's simply a possibility.

Is it possible that one day we will see Dawkins bowing down to the pope praying for Jesus? Not likely and I would always bet against it, but it is possible.

Most deists, that I know at least, will say the same thing about god changing the world again. Not bloody likely, but still a possibility.

That tiny fraction of probability is what makes the difference.

 

[Darat]

I haven't seen that there is a difference, in practice. The nature of the "deist God" is such that it simply wouldn't come up in any sort of scientific discussion of any kind. I'd be willing to wager that most people wouldn't be able to discern a difference between an atheist or a deist at all unless the latter specifically mentions his belief.

That's not right since the deist is (by definition) making two claims, one that the universe was created and that it was created by god/s, a deist is after all a theist, an atheist isn't.

 

[SOdhner]

honestly, it seems like "atheism for theists".

That's fair.

but then stepped back, and has no role or even interest in it now.

He almost certainly has an interest. That interest clearly doesn't require him to directly intervene, and may not align with OUR interests at all.

is there actually any other practical difference in how we see the world, make our decisions, etc.?

Nope.

I used to call myself a deist because I was tired of having to defend my non-belief to theists.

That's a perk, yeah. It's like the benefits to being a white male - I didn't ask for them, but I know enough to be grateful for them.

I don't see how Checkmite's description of deism differs from the "god of the gaps."

It differs slightly in the philosophical approach, at least for me. My understanding of "God of the gaps" is essentially "Whatever we don't understand is god", while my personal take on deism is more about... reverse engineering. The goal is understanding the universe scientifically because we may be able to learn about god in the process. I don't expect there to BE any gaps, though. A gap is something to be filled in with scientific knowledge. Picture reading a science textbook not just to learn about the subject matter but also to try and form a picture of the guy who wrote the book. It's not a lot to go off of, but it's a fun challenge.

Well, pretty much it still allows one to think that grandma is in a better place,

Wouldn't that be lovely? But no, if grandma still exists in any form (which I'm not convinced of) it isn't anything I would call grandma. The traditional image of the afterlife has too many problems for me to even get into here.

That's not right since the deist is (by definition) making two claims, one that the universe was created and that it was created by god/s, a deist is after all a theist, an atheist isn't.

But that won't come up in scientific discussions unless you ask.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I suspect that this is rather a futile question, because there is no more a single set of beliefs common to all deists than there is to all atheists. Probably the answer, therefore, depends on which deist and which atheist you ask.

Dave

 

[Checkmite]

That's not right since the deist is (by definition) making two claims, one that the universe was created and that it was created by god/s, a deist is after all a theist, an atheist isn't.

That's not the way I meant it; what I mean is, unless the discussion is specifically about whether the universe was created, no one would otherwise be able to see the difference. Deists (tend to) accept everything atheists do from the Big Bang to the present. The thing they differ on is whether the Big Bang was causal or acausal (are those real words?).

 

[Pup]

It differs slightly in the philosophical approach, at least for me. My understanding of "God of the gaps" is essentially "Whatever we don't understand is god", while my personal take on deism is more about... reverse engineering. The goal is understanding the universe scientifically because we may be able to learn about god in the process. I don't expect there to BE any gaps, though. A gap is something to be filled in with scientific knowledge. Picture reading a science textbook not just to learn about the subject matter but also to try and form a picture of the guy who wrote the book. It's not a lot to go off of, but it's a fun challenge.

Interesting viewpoint.

To clarify, do you mean that we'd eventually be able to learn all the details about god, even those not connected to this universe, such as where he/she/it came from, why it created the universe, what else it has done besides create this universe, etc.?

Or do you mean that it would be like finding a watch and studying it: you might be able to learn everything about how the watch worked, what material it was made of, etc., and even judge the skill of the watchmaker and the purpose of the watch, but you could never learn, just from studying the watch alone, what color eyes the watchmaker had, what the house he lived in looked like, and so forth.

 

[Darat]

That's not the way I meant it; what I mean is, unless the discussion is specifically about whether the universe was created, no one would otherwise be able to see the difference. Deists (tend to) accept everything atheists do from the Big Bang to the present. The thing they differ on is whether the Big Bang was causal or acausal (are those real words?).

(causal is - acausal sounds like it should be)

But isn't that true for the majority of people who are theists (and indeed atheists)? Certainly in this country you can have discussions about all sorts of things, from politics to football without ever knowing if someone is a theist or not, only if you bring up religion and ask about their beliefs would the differences between the two come to light.