Some thoughts on Deism.......

by desib77 9 Replies latest jw friends

  • desib77

    So I've been thinking a lot about the beliefs behind Deism and a lot of it makes sense to me...... Here are a few things that I still wonder about.

    If God created us and then left us to our own doing I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm very thankful for the chance to have life but on the other hand hate that there is so much suffering in the world.

    Has He abandoned us or does he just watch?

    If I pray to him, does he listen or is it not worth anything but my own comfort?

    Just some of my thoughts......... I'm welcoming any of yours.


  • desib77

    Oh and on a side note......... nobody that I've discussed this with seems very open to the idea of God not blessing them........ go figure.....

  • stillajwexelder

    Thomas Payne was a deist wasn't he?

  • desib77

    yup.......... lol, too bad he isn't around to discuss this with me.... :)

  • parakeet

    I believe Farkel is a deist. He's often discussed deism and the rationale behind it.

  • Spook

    Deism would typically entail that God does not listen - or at least has no standard pattern or reason for whom he listens to or why. That God listens or has a plan would be defined as theism. Both of these involve some system of rules and explanations, in other words, a theology. You may be a generic theist.

    Some of these generic theists, for example, would claim that the fine tuning of the universe indicates this God cares about existance and purpused organic life in general. They would offer against traditional theists the evidence that evolution by natural selection and a world filled with natural evil provide substantial evidence that god does not care about individuals.

    If you can slog through it, get two books: (1) The complet works of Spinoza (2) Any explanatory book which walks you through his thoughts.

  • Narkissos

    The Enlightenment Deism (God as the "Watchmaker") is but a milestone on a very long (and winding) road of increasing distantiation between "G/god(s)" and "the world". It is tributary to a number of ideas which had already developed in Jewish and Christian monotheisms, driving "God" and "the world" further and futher apart: creation as exclusively initial (rather than creatio continua), the Fall, and so on, which had long departed from the ancient view that the gods were ultimately responsible for everything. From this perspective it is less "new" than one might think. It furthers the dominant trend of metaphysical monotheism more than it breaks from it. But there is an undercurrent in religion (or, perhaps better, mysticism) which cannot accept the slightest distance. Spinoza strikes me as characteristic of both: is he a Deist or a rational (and moral) pantheist?

  • darkl1ght3r

    For what it's worth... my two cents:

    I understand the rationale behind deism, and it's tempting to go that route since it seems to explain the big mystery of 'Why does anything exist?', without suffering from the gaping holes in logic that belief in the Biblical God suffers from. You get to accept the findings of science without believing in genesis, the flood, jewish zombies, transubstantiation, etc..., and you get to retain some kind of a hope for something beyond this life... a nice compromise. But it still suffers from the largest problem that all religions face... aside from subjective experiences, what good reasons do we have for believing that it is true?

    Science hasn't revealed that a God is necessary, quite the opposite in fact. While obviously not disproving the existence of God (which is impossible), we have more reason than ever to think that a God hypothesis is completely UNnecessary to explain the universe. For every rock we lift, and box we open, and every unexplainable thing we finally explain, we don't find a God sitting there. We find another natural principal we weren't aware of before. And usually another mystery to solve.

    The suffering in the world is exactly what we would expect to find in a universe that is essentially devoid of (and hostile to) life. When a "theory" purports to explain something, it should make it easier to understand. Not more difficult. Although our world seems incomprehensible at times, stacking an incomprehensible God on top of it makes it no more understandable. We've just needlessly complicated the problem.

    I'm not opposed to the idea of gods existing... I just see no good reason to assume they do. Which is why I'm an atheist.

  • desib77


    So, you will have to simplify this for me. Theists believe in God and that he cares but that he does nothing? As it stands right now I see no evidence that a loving God interferes / intervenes in life at all. I couldn't wrap my mind around a God that loves us and allows people to suffer or that he would pick and choose whoe gets help and who does not. So, if I come to the conclusion that there is a God who is not involved in our lives at all but that may possibly be entertained by us or even concerned but still does nothing does that make me a Theist? You know, as I typed that it made no sense. It would mean that I would believe in a cruel God such as the one in the Bible. If he is only entertained by us or even just watches and does nothing that seems no better to me.


    I see your point and it may be my JW upbringing but I'm amazed by humans and all that comprises us and life on earth. I'm not even sure where I would begin to prove to myself that everything I am amazed by has a scientific explanation, a way that it could come about without a creator.

    lol, sometimes things take a while to sink in with me. I'll definitely think more about what you have both said and may post again later...

  • AllTimeJeff

    bookmarked to read... Deism seems very native to my thinking.

Share this