Entry 18: Theism vs. Deism
This was a segment of my thirteenth [insert scary sounds here] entry, but it didn’t really fit that well and the entry was already getting pretty long. I mainly wanted to include it to pre-empt a certain type of argument for believing in god (a type popular with some skeptics and scientists), but that didn’t really have a place in the article. Moreover, I certainly shouldn’t be doing anything to discourage responses to my articles, as my comment-getting rate is hurting enough as-is.
This topic is related to Entry 13 in that it stems from the discussion of the term atheist. The way I see it, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a theistic god. And, because the concept of deism is distinct from that of theism, atheism therefore has no bearing on deism.
This sounds like mere semantics, especially because all these words are a whopping one or two letters different from one another. However, many of the arguments I was envisioning while starting this topic ultimately amount to arguments for deism. Those arguments are well and good as arguments for deism, but they are irrelevant to both theism and atheism. But, I’m getting way ahead of myself. Let’s take a step back and see exactly what deism is.
“De plane, de plane!” vs. “The plane, the plane!”
Both theism and deism are beliefs in a supernatural deity or deities. (From here on out, I will just use the singular or plural as it comes to me; feel free to change the “y” to “ies” or visa-versa in your head if this offends you.) Well heck … to an atheist, one god is as good as any other god, right? Not quite. Conceptions of deities can be wildly different at a very fundamental level, and I’m not just talking about the omni-potent/present/niscient Abrahamic god as opposed to the nowadays-laughably-human, pimp-on-a-mountaintop Zeus. The deistic conception of god is completely distinct from our everyday theistic ideas of gods.
Theism is the belief in supernatural deities that interact with the natural world. Probably every religion you’ve ever heard of is a theistic religion; I, for one, cannot think of a deistic religion and could not find one in my research (translation: ten minutes of googling). The scale and scope of the deity’s interaction with the world of course varies from religion to religion, and even from believer to believer within a given religion. The only criterion for theism is that god can interact with the observable world.
Deism is the belief in a supernatural deity that does not interact with the natural world. Though I could not find a religion that called itself deist, it does seem that a number of philosophers were into it during the age of enlightenment. Many prominent scientists and intellectuals were probably if not definitely deist, most notably Einstein and a good chunk of the U.S. founding fathers. (Are you surprised by or skeptical of that claim? Good! While you’re looking into it, I would suggest checking out the phrases “under god” and “in god we trust.” Focus on dates.)
You might be having trouble imagining a god that doesn’t interact with the universe (i.e. a deistic god). The deistic conception of god is often described as a watchmaker; a deist believes that god designed the universe, wound it up, and let it go. The way I see it, deism is ultimately more of a philosophical view than a religious view. If you believe that god cannot or will not interact with reality, then praying or following various dogmas (dogmae?) probably wouldn’t be things you’d bother to spend time doing.
Arguments for Deism
I won’t harp on specific arguments here, mainly because I’d be robbing myself of future entry topics. However, I’ll go over a few examples to illustrate my point: many popular arguments for the existence of god are arguments for deism rather than theism. This is a significant problem, and not only because the two concepts are distinct. It is much easier to argue for deism because, by definition, a deistic god is beyond the knowable universe and thus not really accessible to science (or even technically reason).
Some takes on the Goldilocks and/or Anthropic Principle are ultimately arguments for deism. People will argue that, if any of the physical constants of the universe (such as the speed of light or Planck’s constant) were even slightly different, then the universe would be completely incapable of supporting life as we know it. Thus, god must have specially set the constants just right so that life would be possible. While this may be an argument for a god, it is certainly not an argument for the god that the arguer worships. People also often say that god must have set off the Big Bang, or at least must have created that initial something from nothing. Why people go on to assume this Big Banger must be their particular theistic god definitely confuses me.
For the record, I have more substantial counters to these two arguments and will devote entries to them at some point. Suffice to say for now that these are arguments for deism, and in no way argue for a theistic god that interacts with the universe. The next time one of your religious friends suggests you ought to believe in his or her god based on deistic arguments like these, ask them why Odin couldn’t have been the one to set off the Big Bang or fine-tuned the mass of an electron.
So, You’re a Deist … And?
Well, there you have it. Theists believe in a god that interacts with the world, and deists believe in a god that does not interact with the world. Any religious person you’ve ever met is almost surely a theist, so don’t let them sway you to their religion with arguments for deism.
Finally, you might be wondering why someone would bother being a deist. I would tend to agree, because it seems that deism ultimately amounts to a sophistic set of arguments to pin the word god on the eminently unknowable. Though I’m worried I’m using the word incorrectly, note that I didn’t say sophisticated. I mean to say that someone calling themselves a deist probably (a) decided they want some kind of god in their worldview a priori, (b) likes to argue and be contrarian, and/or (c) might ultimately just be completely full of crap. I think sophistic is a perfectly cromulent word here.
My apologies to any deist readers I might have, because I’m being unnecessarily harsh. I don’t have any problems with deism, and there are plenty of compelling arguments for it (as I alluded to earlier). However, as my projection in the previous paragraph implied, I ultimately just don’t see the point. Of course, deism certainly wouldn’t be the first belief system that nonbelievers find peculiar. So let’s skeptically examine their scientific claims, but we’ll embiggen ourselves by not judging other peoples’ religious beliefs.
I think deism is more of a philosophical view than a religious view, which is probably the crux of the small problem I’m having here. I think we can all at least agree that it would seem frivolous to base a formal, organized religion on hard deism; a deist probably cannot even believe in a soul or the afterlife, at least not without some fancy apologetics and definition skirting. As such, don’t let someone arguing for the existence of their religion’s theistic god get away with deistic evidence. Don’t bring that weak sauce in here … this is a skeptic’s house! Bring the deistic arguments when you’re talking to a skeptical adeist.
Posted at 12:33 am by cheglabratjoe
