How is Deism and Atheism practically different?

[MennoSota]

Definition of Deism:

Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Definition of Atheism:

A lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. A philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Since Deism rejects God's interaction with man and Atheism rejects God's existence, how are they different in their practical, everyday function? In both circumstances God is essentially dead (non-existent).
Secondly, if God does not ever interact with humanity, how can a Deist be a Christian? Jesus very clearly claimed to be God incarnate. Denying God's interaction with humanity must therefore mean that a deist rejects Jesus as God.

 

[Stravinsk]

Definition of Deism:

Definition of Atheism:

Since Deism rejects God's interaction with man and Atheism rejects God's existence, how are they different in their practical, everyday function? In both circumstances God is essentially dead (non-existent).
Secondly, if God does not ever interact with humanity, how can a Deist be a Christian? Jesus very clearly claimed to be God incarnate. Denying God's interaction with humanity must therefore mean that a deist rejects Jesus as God.

The definition of Deist changes with the Deist and is not necessarily as strict as the definition you provided. Further, on reflection I see you have added to the definition and elaborated on it so as to extend it to cancel out it's meaning. Deists do believe in a Creator despite your attempt to say we think that Creator is (non-existent). However, one of the main functional differences is that we lean towards the idea of a natural order that God has established, rather than on a reliance on miracles against that order to suit our needs. Many religious people want God to bend His order to suit them, and Deists typically will doubt, rather than outright reject necessarily, that God is going to pepper people's lives with all kinds of exceptions to that order.

The definition may be rigid, but Deists do not need to cling to it to retain the title. For example, this Deist believes miracles are possible, but is not going to look FIRST at them for an explanation of things as some religious people would.

As I am the only person on this forum (active anyway) who claims the title, I can't help but see this thread as addressing me in an underhanded way.

Are you a former banned member here? You seem like a very angry individual with an axe to grind.

 

[Albion]

Practically speaking, a Deist can be expected to follow some moral code although he does not see God as intervening in our lives. An atheist has no spiritual frame of reference and bases his ethical decisions on some purely socio-political set of beliefs (such as Marxism or Objectivism).

 

[MennoSota]

Practically speaking, a Deist can be expected to follow some moral code although he does not see God as intervening in our lives. An atheist has no spiritual frame of reference and bases his ethical decisions on some purely socio-political set of beliefs (such as Marxism or Objectivism).

If God does not intervene in our lives does this mean that God did not inspire the writers of the Bible?
If the Bible is not inspired, but is man-made, does that make the ethics of the Bible purely socio-political sets of belief?
How is deism practically different than atheism?

 

[Albion]

If God does not intervene in our lives does this mean that God did not inspire the writers of the Bible?

That's what a classical Deist would say.

 

[MennoSota]

That's a question for a Deist.

This is a question for anyone at the CH who wishes to answer.

 

[tango]

Practically speaking, a Deist can be expected to follow some moral code although he does not see God as intervening in our lives. An atheist has no spiritual frame of reference and bases his ethical decisions on some purely socio-political set of beliefs (such as Marxism or Objectivism).

An atheist could base his ethical decisions on any moral framework, including something that would fairly closely resemble Christianity. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is the kind of framework that an atheist might follow, not because of any sense that Jesus commanded it, but because he believes it makes for a better society.

Even without a belief in God, or a desire to follow God, the basic framework of the Ten Commandments provides a reasonable bedrock for a social framework. Without a belief in God there's little value in the idea of "no gods before me" but the "don't kill, don't bear false witness, don't commit adultery, don't covet" etc make a lot of sense regardless of whether you have any belief in deities.

 

[Albion]

An atheist could base his ethical decisions on any moral framework, including something that would fairly closely resemble Christianity. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is the kind of framework that an atheist might follow, not because of any sense that Jesus commanded it, but because he believes it makes for a better society.

That's essentially was I said. The Atheist has no God and therefore no moral code. He can be ethical, though, and base his values on some socio-political system of belief. To love your neighbor BECAUSE doing so would make a more wholesome society or because the other person is just like yourself and wants kindness just as you want it for yourself is not inherently a spiritual concept but simply a secular one.

 

[tango]

Since Deism rejects God's interaction with man and Atheism rejects God's existence, how are they different in their practical, everyday function? In both circumstances God is essentially dead (non-existent).

You've made a bit of a leap there - you defined atheism as "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god", and then described atheism as rejecting God's existence. If you're allowing the stance "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god" under one heading, at least keep the heading consistent. We've had a discussion here before over whether someone whose stance is that they lack an active belief in the existence of god but also lack an active belief in the non-existence of god should be considered atheist or agnostic (although some would call them an agnostic atheist, in the sense they have no belief in god - a theist - but also make no claims to know for sure - a gnostic).

It's also not necessarily helpful to take a dictionary definition of a term and assume everyone who identifies with the term matches the dictionary definition in every respect. As one who identifies as Christian rather than Deist I'm not going to put words into the mouths of anyone who does identify as Deist - as Strav said he's the only one here who openly identifies as Deist and he's quite capable of speaking for himself with regard to what he believes

In general, if one believes in a god that does not interact with man (or a god with very limited interaction with man) then it's not unreasonable to believe that such a god will still carry out some role as a judge. I believe the legal system exists, I observe that the legal system has little to no interaction with me, yet I have no doubt that if I were to start breaking the law the legal system would soon take an interest in reining me in. It's entirely consistent to believe that a god exists, that the god has laid down a code we are expected to follow, that we will be judged based on whether we followed the code, but in the meantime the god has little to no interaction with us.

ETA: If one believes in any form of deity who may judge us, one would likely live a life that would be pleasing to such a deity, even if only in the hope of somehow earning a reward in the afterlife. If one believes there is no god and that when we die that's the end of it aside from feeding the worms, there is no eternal difference between living like Josef Stalin and living like Mother Theresa.

Secondly, if God does not ever interact with humanity, how can a Deist be a Christian? Jesus very clearly claimed to be God incarnate. Denying God's interaction with humanity must therefore mean that a deist rejects Jesus as God.

Not at all, where is the logical problem in believing that Jesus is God, that God in human form (Jesus) walked among us for a time interacting with us, and then after Jesus' ascension into heaven there is no further interaction with us? It's not a belief I personally hold but I don't see it to be inherently flawed from a logical consistency perspective.

 

[tango]

That's essentially was I said. The Atheist has no God and therefore no moral code. He can be ethical, though, and base his values on some socio-political system of belief. To love your neighbor BECAUSE doing so would make a more wholesome society or because the other person is just like yourself and wants kindness just as you want it for yourself is not inherently a spiritual concept but simply a secular one.

Agreed, I just wanted to add it because what I read in your post suggested that an atheist's worldview was based purely on a socio-political view, as opposed to something that was primarily social rather than political. I don't think we're far apart on this one

 

[Stravinsk]

If God does not intervene in our lives does this mean that God did not inspire the writers of the Bible?
If the Bible is not inspired, but is man-made, does that make the ethics of the Bible purely socio-political sets of belief?
How is deism practically different than atheism?

Since your conclusions on Deism follow from the first premise (that which I have made bold in your quote), it's the only one that merits attention.

If the definition is absolute and strict as you have so framed it, then yes. However, the definition for Deists is not necessarily so. Deists are not restricted or prohibited from believing in any religion or aspects of it. However, the Deist usually has rational reasons for doing so, rather than on just "I was taught this", or " I must believe this because it was written in this book".

Thomas Jefferson is a fairly famous Deist who actually rewrote some of the bible to better reflect his beliefs. Not that I am saying this is right, but what he showed particularly in some of his writings is that he had a respect for many of the teachings of Jesus, but doubted the miracles, and he also thought of Saul/Paul as a corrupter of Christ's teachings. On this latter point I agree with him, although I do not have any specific problems with the miracles Christ did in the bible. So, here we differ, and your definition comes apart because it simply doesn't apply to everyone - for if Jefferson really did believe the words of Christ and His teachings, then he must have accepted at least some level of intervention by God.

Absolute definitions also don't apply to those claiming the Christian faith. Maybe you are unaware of history, but Christians didn't always have a Bible. Even after it was formed The Canon of Scripture as you know it is not universal among all who claim the title of Christian. Catholics accept books like Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2nd Maccabees, Ethiopian Orthodox books such as Enoch, Orthodox books such as 3 and 4 Maccabees. To you (assuming you are a typical Protestant) all these are uninspired, to them, inspired, and yet every one of the people within these belief systems claims Christianity as their faith.

So, to turn your question around to you - did God inspire the books other faiths hold to (within Christianity) but you do not? If the answer is "no", then why do they still hold to them? Is the answer that only you and your particular beliefs and books you hold as inspired binding insofar as the term "Christian" goes?

 

[MennoSota]

You've made a bit of a leap there - you defined atheism as "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god", and then described atheism as rejecting God's existence. If you're allowing the stance "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god" under one heading, at least keep the heading consistent. We've had a discussion here before over whether someone whose stance is that they lack an active belief in the existence of god but also lack an active belief in the non-existence of god should be considered atheist or agnostic (although some would call them an agnostic atheist, in the sense they have no belief in god - a theist - but also make no claims to know for sure - a gnostic).

It's also not necessarily helpful to take a dictionary definition of a term and assume everyone who identifies with the term matches the dictionary definition in every respect. As one who identifies as Christian rather than Deist I'm not going to put words into the mouths of anyone who does identify as Deist - as Strav said he's the only one here who openly identifies as Deist and he's quite capable of speaking for himself with regard to what he believes

In general, if one believes in a god that does not interact with man (or a god with very limited interaction with man) then it's not unreasonable to believe that such a god will still carry out some role as a judge. I believe the legal system exists, I observe that the legal system has little to no interaction with me, yet I have no doubt that if I were to start breaking the law the legal system would soon take an interest in reining me in. It's entirely consistent to believe that a god exists, that the god has laid down a code we are expected to follow, that we will be judged based on whether we followed the code, but in the meantime the god has little to no interaction with us.

ETA: If one believes in any form of deity who may judge us, one would likely live a life that would be pleasing to such a deity, even if only in the hope of somehow earning a reward in the afterlife. If one believes there is no god and that when we die that's the end of it aside from feeding the worms, there is no eternal difference between living like Josef Stalin and living like Mother Theresa.



Not at all, where is the logical problem in believing that Jesus is God, that God in human form (Jesus) walked among us for a time interacting with us, and then after Jesus' ascension into heaven there is no further interaction with us? It's not a belief I personally hold but I don't see it to be inherently flawed from a logical consistency perspective.

How does a god who exists, but never interacts, lay down a code of ethics by which humans objectively know right from wrong? How is it not simply a socio-political creation of human thought?

 

[MennoSota]

Since your conclusions on Deism follow from the first premise (that which I have made bold in your quote), it's the only one that merits attention.

If the definition is absolute and strict as you have so framed it, then yes. However, the definition for Deists is not necessarily so. Deists are not restricted or prohibited from believing in any religion or aspects of it. However, the Deist usually has rational reasons for doing so, rather than on just "I was taught this", or " I must believe this because it was written in this book".

Thomas Jefferson is a fairly famous Deist who actually rewrote some of the bible to better reflect his beliefs. Not that I am saying this is right, but what he showed particularly in some of his writings is that he had a respect for many of the teachings of Jesus, but doubted the miracles, and he also thought of Saul/Paul as a corrupter of Christ's teachings. On this latter point I agree with him, although I do not have any specific problems with the miracles Christ did in the bible. So, here we differ, and your definition comes apart because it simply doesn't apply to everyone - for if Jefferson really did believe the words of Christ and His teachings, then he must have accepted at least some level of intervention by God.

Absolute definitions also don't apply to those claiming the Christian faith. Maybe you are unaware of history, but Christians didn't always have a Bible. Even after it was formed The Canon of Scripture as you know it is not universal among all who claim the title of Christian. Catholics accept books like Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2nd Maccabees, Ethiopian Orthodox books such as Enoch, Orthodox books such as 3 and 4 Maccabees. To you (assuming you are a typical Protestant) all these are uninspired, to them, inspired, and yet every one of the people within these belief systems claims Christianity as their faith.

So, to turn your question around to you - did God inspire the books other faiths hold to (within Christianity) but you do not? If the answer is "no", then why do they still hold to them? Is the answer that only you and your particular beliefs and books you hold as inspired binding insofar as the term "Christian" goes?

First, how is Deism practically different from atheism? You didn't answer this question.

Second, did God inspire writers from other faith groups?
No, God did not.
We understand this to be true when we consider the attributes they ascribe to God and when we consider it's profitability for doctrine, for reproof and for correction in righteousness. It is by this process we recognize that Thomas Jefferson's edit of the Bible represents heresy.
So, why do people hold to other human writings above God's inspired word?
Answer: Humans are born in rebellion to God. Like the devil, they aspire to usurp God and create their own human standards of good and evil as superior to God's written standards expressed in the Bible. Such rebels find God's word off-putting and will even reject writings in the Bible because it doesn't fit their own narrative of what they imagine about a god who doesn't interact with them. Instead, they create their own personal narrative and write their own philosophy, which becomes their own gospel.
Back to the first question.
How is deism practically different than atheism?

 

[tango]

How does a god who exists, but never interacts, lay down a code of ethics by which humans objectively know right from wrong? How is it not simply a socio-political creation of human thought?

By interacting with us for a time and then ceasing to interact. It's not logically inconsistent to claim that God may have once interacted with us but no longer does so.

 

[MennoSota]

By interacting with us for a time and then ceasing to interact. It's not logically inconsistent to claim that God may have once interacted with us but no longer does so.

If God interacts with us, then Deism cannot be true. It is logically inconsistent to say God once interacted, but doesn't anymore.
It cannot be measured that God ever interacted, therefore the deist and the atheist must be fundamentally and practically the same.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The definition of Deist changes with the Deist and is not necessarily as strict as the definition you provided. Further, on reflection I see you have added to the definition and elaborated on it so as to extend it to cancel out it's meaning. Deists do believe in a Creator despite your attempt to say we think that Creator is (non-existent). However, one of the main functional differences is that we lean towards the idea of a natural order that God has established, rather than on a reliance on miracles against that order to suit our needs. Many religious people want God to bend His order to suit them, and Deists typically will doubt, rather than outright reject necessarily, that God is going to pepper people's lives with all kinds of exceptions to that order.

The definition may be rigid, but Deists do not need to cling to it to retain the title. For example, this Deist believes miracles are possible, but is not going to look FIRST at them for an explanation of things as some religious people would.

Thanks for this

 

[tango]

If God interacts with us, then Deism cannot be true. It is logically inconsistent to say God once interacted, but doesn't anymore.
It cannot be measured that God ever interacted, therefore the deist and the atheist must be fundamentally and practically the same.

Why is it logically inconsistent to say that God once interacted but stopped? Since we don't see people like Elijah any more it's anything but inconsistent. God sent a succession of prophets to tell us how he wanted us to live, then left us to get on with it.

Again, not a view that I personally hold but I don't see what's logically inconsistent with it.

 

[MennoSota]

Why is it logically inconsistent to say that God once interacted but stopped? Since we don't see people like Elijah any more it's anything but inconsistent. God sent a succession of prophets to tell us how he wanted us to live, then left us to get on with it.

Again, not a view that I personally hold but I don't see what's logically inconsistent with it.

Has the gift of prophesy ceased? Were there not other prophets? Did they not say "Thus says the Lord"? Does the Bible indicate God is not active?
No. If you state that God has ceased to interact with creation, then when? What arbitrary line do you draw regarding a God who lives outside of time and within it as well?

 

[Albion]

Why is it logically inconsistent to say that God once interacted but stopped? Since we don't see people like Elijah any more it's anything but inconsistent. God sent a succession of prophets to tell us how he wanted us to live, then left us to get on with it.

Again, not a view that I personally hold but I don't see what's logically inconsistent with it.

It isn't logically inconsistent; it's just not Deism. And by that I mean Deism as it was understood during the Enlightenment when it was a notable POV.

In the years since, the term has been used by all sorts of people, and what each one means by it is whatever he wants it to mean.

 

[Stravinsk]

It isn't logically inconsistent; it's just not Deism. And by that I mean Deism as it was understood during the Enlightenment when it was a notable POV.

In the years since, the term has been used by all sorts of people, and what each one means by it is whatever he wants it to mean.

The people who are Deists all hold one thing in common, we believe in a Creator and point to Creation itself as the evidence. In terms of thinking about the nature of the world and our place in it, this is our base. That being said, we do not all agree on the finer points. To give you what I believe is a good example of Deist thinking:

Someone once said to me that they are a "believer (Bible/Christianity)" but they really don't like some of what the Bible teaches. For instance, they dislike the prohibitions on same sex relations or homosexuality.
I told this person I do not need a bible to know that homosexuality is wrong and not part of God's order, and that I don't need a single verse in the bible to defend my position. I can simply look at human physiology and determine what was intended and what was not in this matter. Pressing further, I could bring up incidence of disease relating to it. This is evidence to a Deist. A person relying solely on a revealed religion might need to quote a verse, but a Deist should not, although they may indeed agree with the verse, as it is in harmony with their observation and conclusion based on it.

As noted earlier, the term "Christian" is as much a loose term as Deist in the sense that depending on the individual, it can encompasses a fairly wide set of beiefs expressed through different denominations as well as different sets of Scripture to which they turn to find enlightenment. If this were not so, would there be a need to debate theology among those who bear the title? But there is much debate and disagreement, so the point you make is as true for the label Christian as it is for a Deist in the general sense.