That’s why definitions are important. As one of my sage teachers in law school would say “either define or be defined.” In my view, the demarcation between deism and theism is clear and articulated in my original post. It provides a less than perfect ad hoc answer to the intractable problem of “how did we get here?” without all the ridiculous anthropomorphic and paternalistic guilt-tripping baggage of theism, on one hand, and the vacuous, question-begging “something out of nothing” assertions of atheism, on the other. Admittedly, the unfortunate term “deism” carries the potential, as you note, of being conflated with “theism.” But there is nothing I can do to remedy that problem other than make clear how I define the term…
After all, aside from one being Latin and the other Greek, they’re cognates and synonyms. How exactly do you define the terms?
I think I hit the main points in my original post re deism: “No personal God, no miracles, no special revelation, no parochial religious squabbles, etc. A cosmic designer, or as Jefferson eloquently put it, “Nature’s God”, that simply creates the initial conditions and laws of nature and let’s her rip…”
Without writing a dissertation I would contrast deism and theism as such:
-
Divine intervention v. divine passivity. Theists believe in divine intervention while deists do not. Theists see God as actively involved in the world, sustaining the world, etc. while deists view God as a neutral and passive observer.
-
Revelation v. reason. Theists rely on revelation for ultimate knowledge of the world, while deists rely upon reason and natural observation.
The “set it and forget it” model of creation. Which…honestly, whatever. Evolutionary creationists aren’t out here causing all sorts of problems, unlike some people lookingatyouaiganddi
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.