Talk:Deism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Brian Dean Abramson (there are two common strains of thought that go into Deism; It is possible to adhere to either strain without being a Deist, but it impossible to be a Deist without adhering to both) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
One can believe it is possible to "use reason and logic to prove a ''theistic'' God" without thereby being a deist. That's just the project of natural theology, which can have its own article--I'm not sure what it has to do with deism ''per se.'' --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:39, 7 June 2007 (CDT) | One can believe it is possible to "use reason and logic to prove a ''theistic'' God" without thereby being a deist. That's just the project of natural theology, which can have its own article--I'm not sure what it has to do with deism ''per se.'' --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:39, 7 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Well, there are two common strains of thought that go into Deism, one being that the Universe is the product of a creator-God who does not interact with humanity, and the other being that ''because'' no such interaction occurs, the existence and characteristics of this God can ''only'' be determined by use of reason and logic. Therefore, it is important to note as precedents to the development of Deism the development of these two strains of thought. It is possible to adhere to either strain without being a Deist, but it impossible to be a Deist without adhering to both. Of course, before getting to the belief that the existence of God can only be proved by reason and logic, it is necessary to demonstrate that such proofs can exist at all, even if their originators used them to prove a theistic God. Cheers! [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 14:15, 7 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:15, 7 June 2007
I'd like to see some proof that deism properly so called is strictly a 17th and 18th century phenomenon. I had a friend in grad school who used to call himself a deist, and I found nothing particularly unusual about that. --Larry Sanger 23:25, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, I hardly think that it is - however, it was certainly acheived a height of popularity in that era that it has been slow to return to. I'll get to it (and add in Dawkins criticism that Deism is "watered down theism" as well) later in the week. Brian Dean Abramson 23:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Also, somewhere in there I must note the many previous attempts to use reason and logic to prove a theistic God, e.g. the Islamic theologian Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who argued in the Ninth Century "that men could prove the existence of God logically with rational arguments." (Karen Armstrong, A History of God p. 167). Brian Dean Abramson 01:27, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
One can believe it is possible to "use reason and logic to prove a theistic God" without thereby being a deist. That's just the project of natural theology, which can have its own article--I'm not sure what it has to do with deism per se. --Larry Sanger 01:39, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
- Well, there are two common strains of thought that go into Deism, one being that the Universe is the product of a creator-God who does not interact with humanity, and the other being that because no such interaction occurs, the existence and characteristics of this God can only be determined by use of reason and logic. Therefore, it is important to note as precedents to the development of Deism the development of these two strains of thought. It is possible to adhere to either strain without being a Deist, but it impossible to be a Deist without adhering to both. Of course, before getting to the belief that the existence of God can only be proved by reason and logic, it is necessary to demonstrate that such proofs can exist at all, even if their originators used them to prove a theistic God. Cheers! Brian Dean Abramson 14:15, 7 June 2007 (CDT)