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

[Undesired Walrus]

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?

 

[Piscivore]

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?

1. This is just "make up whatever you want and call it god" out of bits of what you do understand.
2. Good luck coming up with a coherent universal definition for that. I don't even belive in a "mind" for humans.
3. That's just a limitation, what god is not. It says nothing about what it is.

 

[bokonon]

Unlikely? Sure, though I can't list concrete reasons.

As I said in the "New Deism" thread, I'm less inclined to reject the notion outright than the "pray for good stuff, believe for eternal life" god most of western civilization seems to have in mind when they use the word.

If the exchange of ions in my brain can give rise to self-awareness, it seems a bit presumptuous to say that a universe swarming with gravitons, photons, dark energy, and who knows what all, might not be dreaming its own cosmic dreams. Deep down, I may not believe it is, but I wouldn't call it impossible.

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.

 

[bokonon]

This is just "make up whatever you want and call it god" out of bits of what you do understand.

Aren't they all?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I suppose the concept of this 'God' falls away when it begins to resemble less and less what the definition of a 'God' is.

It appears to resemble, in many deists eyes, a being halfway between an Alien superintelligence and a non-physical part of the universe. Whether this is simply another Russell teapot, I'm unsure of.

 

[Piscivore]

Aren't they all?

From our (skeptical) point of view, yeah. Most of the traditional gods, for theists, not so much. Their gods have specific qualities that they (the theists) did not themselves make up. I'm not sure a deist who says that god is just that which lies "beyond our understanding" can have that sort of legitiamacy (as flawed as it may be).

I suppose the concept of this 'God' falls away when it begins to resemble less and less what the definition of a 'God' is.

It appears to resemble, in many deists eyes, a being halfway between an Alien superintelligence and a non-physical part of the universe. Whether this is simply another Russell teapot, I'm unsure of.

Something like. It's putting a label on the blank spots on a map and hoping that there is something special there. "Here be god".

 

[Roboramma]

None of us here are under any delusions that there are things more complex and grander than what we currently understand,

Well, I can't speak for others, but actually I do think that there are many things more complex and grander than what we currently understand. Of course, I can't be sure of that, but the history of science has shown that this has been the case through most of history - the more we learn about the universe the more complex wonder we find.
On the other hand if something "more complex and grander than what we currently understand" does exist, all that means is that it exists, we (by definition) don't yet know anything about it.
It could be new physics or chemistry, amazing insights in the biology of trees, etc, but until we find out about the remaining wonder of the universe, well... we haven't found out about it.

Which is the problem I have with all the various ideas of god - the suggestion that because we don't know something about the universe, we do.

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?

Well, you hinted at it in your post - Russel's teapot. This entity isn't impossible - just no more likely than the infinite other non-impossible things we can concieve. In other words - pretty unlikely.

Moreover, what you've listed here isn't something that you found by looking at what we know, but rather at what we don't - saying "well, there's space here in our ignorance, in which some sort of god could fit". Sure, could. But to the question of does all of this is completely silent.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with that if we can go from could to looking at the universe and finding ways to ask does it? But for this question, we're left in a dark room.

So I disbelieve all ideas about the universe that suggest that they know something about the way it is because we can't show that it isn't that way.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The 'None of us here are under any delusions that there are things more complex and grander than what we currently understand' is meant to be 'None of us here are under any delusions that there are NOT things more complex and grander than what we currently understand'

Apologies.

 

[dglas]

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?

Yes. Because it is a derivative, stripped-down version of the theistic god, and also because it seems that people who are deists just seem to be theists playing the NOMA game.

For the deist there is only one question that matters. What appeal does a deist god have for you? If it's "comforting" in any way, then the content of your conception ranges beyond the sterilized "deist" conception of god; it is theism. If it isn't, then you're clutching at air.

Undesired Walrus presents the wrong question, of course. The real question is: "Is there a particular reason to find this entity likely?"

No. Unless you class wishful thinking as a "reason" used in the way "reason" is used by Undesired Walrus...

Of course, for a skeptic like me, I never give my assent to anything without at least some reason for doing so. The default is non-assent. Skeptics start from there instead. There is no reason to think such an "entity" likely.

 

[Lucky]

I was about to explain in the Dawkins thread why I don't describe myself as an atheist, but it's more relevant here – though I suppose I mean I'm not an adeist. However, the semantic question is not very interesting. The physics question certainly is, but the problem is we don't know how to investigate it yet. We can begin to tackle it by reasoning in terms of complex systems and emergent properties, but it can only be speculation at the moment. Very entertaining speculation, though!

Unlikely? Sure, though I can't list concrete reasons.

As I said in the "New Deism" thread, I'm less inclined to reject the notion outright than the "pray for good stuff, believe for eternal life" god most of western civilization seems to have in mind when they use the word.

If the exchange of ions in my brain can give rise to self-awareness, it seems a bit presumptuous to say that a universe swarming with gravitons, photons, dark energy, and who knows what all, might not be dreaming its own cosmic dreams. Deep down, I may not believe it is, but I wouldn't call it impossible.

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.

But why do you think it's unlikely? I can't prove you wrong, but it seems to me overwhelmingly more likely than not that larger and more complex matter/energy systems than a brain, possibly including the universe as a whole, can possess the emergent property of mind. Otherwise you would have to explain what is unique about the substance, structure and operation of the human brain that allows mind to emerge from it and from no other complex system. My guess is that it's not at all unique in this respect. Many, probably most, computer scientists (also many physicists) would agree, and perhaps when our technology advances to the point that we are surrounded by intelligent machines we won't find an intelligent universe such a strange concept.

I also don't rule out the possibility that non-physical systems such as mathematics or the laws of physics could be mind-like, though I can't manage to imagine such a mind. Nor even that the universe-mind could be aware of its component intelligent beings, and vice versa. True we can't communicate with our neurons, but that doesn't prove that an intelligent universe couldn't communicate with us – again, I have no picture of what this might mean.

 

[bokonon]

But why do you think it's unlikely? I can't prove you wrong, but it seems to me overwhelmingly more likely than not that larger and more complex matter/energy systems than a brain, possibly including the universe as a whole, can possess the emergent property of mind. Otherwise you would have to explain what is unique about the substance, structure and operation of the human brain that allows mind to emerge from it and from no other complex system.

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

I'm willing to entertain the idea of "conscious universe as great spirit," but in my mind it's more a metaphor than a real possibility.

perhaps when our technology advances to the point that we are surrounded by intelligent machines we won't find an intelligent universe such a strange concept.

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.

 

[godless dave]

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?

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.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Although a deist god may be more plausible than a theist god I still see no evidence for either. Therefore yes, I would call myself an "adeist".


Edit: Damn, Godless Dave just pretty much the same thing.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes. Because it is a derivative, stripped-down version of the theistic god, and also because it seems that people who are deists just seem to be theists playing the NOMA game.

For the deist there is only one question that matters. What appeal does a deist god have for you? If it's "comforting" in any way, then the content of your conception ranges beyond the sterilized "deist" conception of god; it is theism. If it isn't, then you're clutching at air.

Undesired Walrus presents the wrong question, of course. The real question is: "Is there a particular reason to find this entity likely?"

No. Unless you class wishful thinking as a "reason" used in the way "reason" is used by Undesired Walrus...

Of course, for a skeptic like me, I never give my assent to anything without at least some reason for doing so. The default is non-assent. Skeptics start from there instead. There is no reason to think such an "entity" likely.

I'm uncertain as to why you are addressing me in the third person...

 

[Ateius]

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.

What he said.

 

[dglas]

I'm uncertain as to why you are addressing me in the third person...

I was not properly socialized maybe?
It's a distancing device, like bad acting in a B-movie perhaps?
Perhaps I'm soap-boxing. It's like shadow boxing, but with soap.

Maybe there's an episode of House that covers that.
Maybe it's connected with my frozen inner thigh muscle and my terrible fashion sense.
Differential diagnostic anyone?


Once thoughts are put to thread, they don't belong to anyone in particular. They are everyone's. What's more curious is why I used the word "you" instead of "one" in the following sentence.

No. Unless you class wishful thinking as a "reason" used in the way "reason" is used by Undesired Walrus...

I wasn't referring specifically to you with the "you" there, Undesired Walrus. I have to watch that; it sounds unnecessarily confrontational. My apologies.


Less flippantly, it's probably because when I type in threads I am rarely speaking directly to a given poster, even the one I am quoting. I see threads as group discussions. I am mostly more interested in the ideas than the person presenting them. Mostly.

My apologies if this seemed alien and strange. My apologies for being alien and strange.

 

[bokonon]

For the deist there is only one question that matters. What appeal does a deist god have for you? If it's "comforting" in any way, then the content of your conception ranges beyond the sterilized "deist" conception of god; it is theism. If it isn't, then you're clutching at air.

Would knowing you're not going to burn in hell for failing to worship a deity that drowns babies count as "comfort"? Okay, you can get the same benefit by being a straight-up atheist, so maybe that doesn't count. How about the comfort of knowing you could answer "yes" to the question of whether you believe in god while hooked up to a polygraph and still have a shot at being elected President? Or the comfort the old-school deists found: that god keeps the physical laws enforced, keeps the gravity gravitating, the sun shining, the planets circling, the rain falling, the time passing, the light illuminating, the molecules cohering, etc.

If I ever start a religious movement, it's going to have a nice rational deist god at its center, not some sociopath playing whack-a-soul or sky Santa doling out favors.

 

[Moochie]

I might class myself as a "know-nothing-ist," due to my painful realization that the beliefs -- not necessarily religious -- that I've looked to for succor didn't provide what I felt I needed.

Cue U2's song...

As much as I understand anything, I understand that most of my life I have reacted out of fear -- fear of the "other": you.

Fear is a powerful motivator -- as articulett will verify -- so it comes as no surprise that when fear is the motivator, we will embrace just about anything that will provide relief, be it a political ideology, religious ideology, or a mix of the two -- and I think they're often intertwined more than we are usually ready to admit to.

My problem is that the "usual fixes" haven't worked for me.

There is no relief in religion. There is no relief in politics. There is some faux relief in some chemical concoctions, but ultimately they don't work, either. The chemicals always wear off.

I find I smile a lot when I read many of the posts here.

But I'm not laughing.


M.

 

[dglas]

Would knowing you're not going to burn in hell for failing to worship a deity that drowns babies count as "comfort"? Okay, you can get the same benefit by being a straight-up atheist, so maybe that doesn't count. How about the comfort of knowing you could answer "yes" to the question of whether you believe in god while hooked up to a polygraph and still have a shot at being elected President?

Would one now, knowing that one is equivocating the meaning of God? Would that show up on the polygraph?

You know, I bet nerve damage to the point of having no feeling is more comfortable than feeling all those little nicks and abrasions that informs one that one has suffered damage - and the infection one won't notice that follows. Screw the insulin; bring on the nerve damage! That's the religious way.

Or the comfort the old-school deists found: that god keeps the physical laws enforced, keeps the gravity gravitating, the sun shining, the planets circling, the rain falling, the time passing, the light illuminating, the molecules cohering, etc.

If the fact that these things happen isn't sufficient, then why would positing some God-thingy to do the trick without assuming some additional emotional/normative content do so?

If I ever start a religious movement, it's going to have a nice rational deist god at its center, not some sociopath playing whack-a-soul or sky Santa doling out favors.

"Whack-a soul."
I Like that! May I use it?

Oh, about starting a religion....just say "no." Friends don't let friends start religions. Give a hoot; don't pollute. You know...

Even leaving aside for the moment the idea of hidden emotive/normative content in the "deist" god, we are still left with the dynamics of a concept which pretends to offer explanatory force (presumably with predictive power) while still prohibiting nothing. This means it has no explanatory power (and hence, no predictive power) at all. This kind of concept is nearly invariably an inhibitor to growth and understanding. It is still meaningless. And so, to make it interesting, we run full circle into reading non-existent meaning into the concept again. Round and round and round we go...

 

[bokonon]

"Whack-a soul."
I Like that! May I use it?

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.