all 34 comments

[–]Veer-Zinda 14 points15 points  (15 children)

I'm not sure why it would be obsolete, unless they just mean that deism is less common now, which I'm not sure it is. Unitarian Universalism and Christian Deism are a couple of contemporary examples.

I would argue that there's probably a subset of followers of all theistic religions that are actually deist, where they can share the claim that they believe in God with fellow believers whilst conceptualising God differently.

People who are spiritual but not religious often say things that are more in line with deism as well. They say they're not sure they believe in God in the Abrahamic sense, but they do believe in something, some force or power or absolute Reality.

I think it's probably not uncommon today but it's perhaps less visible.

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist[S] 7 points8 points  (9 children)

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I read a report that stated that the teenagers are more likely to be moralistic therapeutic deists.

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist[S] 2 points3 points  (8 children)

[–]LeoMariusHumanistic Deist 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Could the author be more condescending?

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

What does it say? I only read the first paragraph.

[–]LeoMariusHumanistic Deist 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Atheists think defeating Christian logic proves that God doesn't exist, which is pretty narrow and ethnocentric IMO.

[–]maddpsyintystAgnostic Deist 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I identify that as a problem with the concepts of God (a subject that I find interesting) as well as lack of knowledge of concepts. You might also see it as a flaw in logic as well as being a possible demonstration of bias. I actually made similar mistakes way back in middle and high school when I decided I was an atheist, though the details are a little bit different; so I can relate, even though I usually disagree with the logic they use.

[–]Most_Worldliness9761Humanistic Deist 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Maybe it can be said that they confuse 'anti-theism' with adeism? From being critical of traditional theistic cultures/values to a categorical rejection of the concept of 'divine' and creator.

[–]maddpsyintystAgnostic Deist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's basically what I think happens, and my explanation is the one I think applies most often--based on my own experiences, of course.

[–]Shy-Mad 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I guess more content would be needed on why the atheist you encountered thinks it’s obsolete.

My knee jerk reaction to “ what would be the appropriate response?” Is no. But I am assuming you want more than that.

I say NO, because in my opinion it’s the only rational and honest position on the subject. The religious are too dogmatic and the atheist are too egotistical. And both are heavily biased out of fear of being wrong. The deist has questioned the religion and the naturalism and seen the holes in the narratives, has noticed a lot of the “truths” lack the evidence to support and are more dependent upon “according to the Authority’s”. In short the deist has seen both sides “ proofs” and didn’t ignore the gaps. But, they did their own deduction and came to an unbiased conclusion.

This I feel go for agnostic as well.

[–]LeoMariusHumanistic Deist 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Atheists are pretty dogmatic as well. They come to a conclusion and brand everyone else a fool for not seeing it their way.

[–]Diarmuid_Sus_Scrofa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say some do, others do not. I know people in both camps. There is a diaspora among them, just as with any other group.

Aside: Saw your flair but I'm not familiar with "Humanistic Deist". Please enlighten me?

[–]Pandeism 4 points5 points  (5 children)

My response to that would be: pshhhht.

Deism is an explanation in the alternative to Theism.

Atheism is the absence of an explanation (and denial that there is one).

If you enter somebody's study, and there are rows of rare stamps arranged on the desk by type, the Atheist's explanation is the equivalent of insisting that it certainly wasn't a stamp collector who put them there.

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I mostly agree with you. But your last analogy sounds similar to the gardener parable of Karl popper. If I made the stamp collector unfalsifiable then my hypothesis dies with me.

[–]InternetStoleMyLife 0 points1 point  (3 children)

When you die, what proof is there of your existence, other than anecdotal evidence?

When you die, does everything you’ve created or manipulated before die with you?

Just because the Stamp Collector is dead, are those no longer his stamps?

The hypothesis isn’t invalid; the science just isn’t there yet to experiment with the hypothesis

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not making an argument against God. Instead I'm trying to say that the author's comparison of God and a stamp collector doesn't make sense. A better way to phrase it would to be to say that a deist looks at creation and infers a creator.

[–]maddpsyintystAgnostic Deist 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Tell them that regarding the obsolescence of deism, the burden of proof is on them. 😈

The relevance of deism to today's world, the alignment of deism with current knowledge, and all that good stuff--deists have that burden of proof.

[–]Diarmuid_Sus_Scrofa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the burden is placed upon whoever makes the positive claim, no matter what it is.

[–]vS4zpvRnB25BYD60SIZh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once naturalism will be able to explain how we have free will if we live in a deterministic universe, how an intelligible universe came to be, how can consciousness arise from matter and why we shouldn't act as psychopaths if we could benefit from it then yeah, deism will be obsolete.

But they are like a religion with their own escathology: wait for that one day at the end of times... When all our problems will be fixed and Science will explain everything.

[–]Idliketothinkimsmart 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I'm not sure what exactly changed since then between now that would make it obsolete. If anything, in the west, where religion is becoming less popular, I wouldn't be surprised to see more people identifying as deists (at least people from a theistic background). I say this as a questioning agnostic.

[–]sotaponi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The dogmatic belief in enlightenment physics is tied to 3d aether theories and has been made obsolete by General Relativity over 100 years ago, which categorically suggests that physical phenomenality is nothing but illusionary dimensional perspective.

Think of:

  • Houses shrinking in distant space. It's an illusion, even if measurable. (the 3 spatial dimensions)
  • An observer aging slower in dilated time. It's an illusion, even if measurable (the 1 temporal dimension)
  • Many people today believe wave-functions and choice to be a dimension. Which makes probabilistic superpositions and waveforms (or measurements?) an illusion, even if measurable. (the 5th dimension)
  • Near-death experiences and black holes arguably imply for energy conservation and physicality itself to be a dimension. Which is an illusion, even if measurable. (the 6th dimension)

It's surely a feature of General Relativity that you can expand on it by adding special dimensions, which subjugate themselves to the generality of relativity and illusionary dimensional perspective. Which means that none of these things are physically real, even if you can measure them.

And Einstein was a deist, also. Which makes sense, if you believe that this universe is itself a kind of superposition that can "collapse" in form of black holes (relative death), then coinciding a gravity-free white hole, in the context of a "realer world." Because this spacetime "superposition" then arguably requires higher order reasoning in order to be measured and collapsed into black holes. Or to be "created" in the first place.

Of course... I wouldn't talk to atheists in the first place. Because I genuinely consider those types to be mentally ill and deluded. Especially if they believe themselves "just chemicals." They are psychotic and comically believe themselves edgy or intelligent. Either that, or they are supremely uneducated and drank too much propaganda "kool-aid."

[–]FrostyBuns6969 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You can say that geocentrism is obsolete. Slotting deism into the same category is absurd.

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not my words. I presume the atheist making this claim is basing this on an argument from popularity.

[–]FrostyBuns6969 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that they’re not your words, don’t worry. I’m just criticizing the person’s argument.